translation of Lyra's wordes both the worde aliquando in the begining also the end of his sentence to wit Lyra in c. 14. Dan. talia exstirpanda sunt à bonis prelatis sicut ista extirpata sunt à Daniele De ciuit l. 2. c. 8. And we yet further affirme with S. Augustin that he that seeketh to be confirmed by miracles nowe is to be wondered at most of all himselfe in refusing to beleeue what all the world beleeueth besides himselfe But in those wordes S. Augustin doth not deny but that true miracles may be in the Church nor yet that they were not in his time Lib. 22. c. 8. for in his bookes de Ciuit. he affirmeth expressely that Christian doctrine not onely in the begining but also in the progresse of the Church was confirmed by miracles as besides other places the very title of that same chapter rehearsed in my margen makes appeare to which these his wordes in the discourse following plainely agree De miraculis quae vt mundus in Christo crederet facta sunt ficri mundo credente nō desinunt Tit. c. 8 li. 22. For saith S. Augustin euen at this present time miracles are operated or done in his name in the name of Christ either by the Sacraments or by the prayers memories of his saints And the same S. Aug. in the same place further relates one famous miracle in particular done at the bodie of S. Geruase Protase in Milā where he himselfe remained at that present time And by this it is euident that S. Aug. in the other place produced by Sir Humfrey onely condemneth him whoe for want of miracles should refuse to beleeue to which we Romanists most willingly agree And by this it appeareth that S. Augustin is here impertinently alledged by the knight But the trueth is that because these companions haue no miracles in their owne Church they striue by all meanes possible to obscure the miracles of the Church of Rome crye out like Bedlames ther is no need of miracles And now to come to a conclusion of this section the censure of it I would faine knowe of Sir Humfrey what is all this discourse of miracles to the purpose of testifying his doctrine by the confession of Bellarmin surely nothing at all I persuade my selfe the knight was mightly distracted when he penned it and so I leaue him till he returnes to his more perfect senses THE XV. PERIOD SIR Humfrey playeth the parte of a Charlatan so farre that he is not content by his prestigious trickes sleights to laie clame to ancient Fathers moderne Romanists for confessors of his owne faith but also out of the groasenes of his education in this section he presumeth to laie his greasie handes vpon those holie primatiue martyres champions of Iesus Christ ingrossing conueying those sacred wares into his owne stincking store-house which neuerthelesse all ages all Christian people all nations haue till the dayes of Luther proclamed testified to pertaine to the renowne glorie of the Roman Church And altho' he would seeme to proue that the foresaid prime martyrs doe not belong to the Church of Rome yet his cheefe proofe is but prating an idle application of his owne tenets alreadie examined confuted in their seuerall places where they haue ben all founde either plainelie false or at the least equiuocall founded vpon false suppositions vpon which no true argument can be framed which being so I may iustelie saue labour to descend to particulars yet one onelie wil I specifie which is so shamefullie impertinent that it is sufficient alone to shame the rest He sayth therefore that Father Garnet being demaunded whether if he were to consecrate the Sacrament that morning he should suffer death he durst after consecration affirme vpon his Saluation that the wine in the cup consecrated was the verie blood of Christ which flowed from his side he made ansere it might iustelie be doubted This is the wise storie which Sir Humfrey telleth vs out of Bishop Andrewes which altho' wee are not bounde to beleeue as being iustified onelie by our aduersaries yet suppose it is as true as their Gospell it maketh not anie thing for this purpose for that Sir Humfreys taske in this place was not to medle with martyrs of these later ages but to demonstrate that those ancient martyrs of former ages did not die for that fayth which the present Roman Church professeth so what soeuer he or his Prelate can faigne of Father Garnet is but a fooles boult which flying at randome cometh not neare the marke Father Garnet sayth hee durst not pronounce openlie ouer the cup after he had consecrated it this is the bloud of Christ ergo neuer anie martyr did take it vpon his death that the consecrated bread is the corporall reall flesh of Christ Behould I praye this most subtill Logike of a knight admire it Or if you list rather laffe at it as I did when I founde it out so I lefte it without anie further confutation imagining that perhaps Sir Humfrey lōg before he was borne did miraculouslie speake with some of those ancient souldiers of Christ so came to knowe that none of them euer gaue their liues for the reall presence Which in deed is the point in question not whether a man can lawfullie pronounce vpon his Saluation whether this or that hoste in particular after consecration containeth the bodie of Christ as the knight captiouslie supposeth But yet shewing vs some more graines of his follie he sayth further that it is vndoubtedlie true that the ancient martyrs could not dye in that fayth nor for that religion which was altogether vnknowne to their church O ingenious gētilman but yet I pray tell me if the fore sayd martyrs dyed not for the Romanists religion because as you faigne they dyed not for the profession of the reall presence For what religion did they dye Suerlie not for yours because if our religiō was vnknowne vnto them much more was yours vnknowne to their ages which was not in the world before the daies of Luther except perhaps your 39. articles were knowne vnto them by extraordinarie reuelation before they were coyned It is true here we haue Sir Humfreys ipse dixit for confirmation of his tenet so it must needs be doubtlesse his authority is so excessiuely great Sir Tho. Ouerb in his caract of a Puritā or Precisian And so I graunt the hypotheticall to be most true And me thinkes it is not much vnlike to an other such like position of the Puritans who vse to say it is vnpossible for a man to be damned in their religion so a facetious Protestant confesses for certaine as long as heliues in it but if he dyes in it ther 's the question Wherefore since all is but trifles that Sir Humfrey bringeth I wish the reader of his booke to consider with himselfe
expounde the faith of the holye church the opinion of this sect that hauing expounded them we approue one reproue the other by a fewe authorities breefe reasons For neither epistolar breuitie doth permit nor anie reason requires that we insert prolix testimonies of either scriptures or arguments of disputation For such as ar faithfull people but seduced doe not pertinatiously insist in defence of their deprauation but rather hauing heard vnderstanded reasons desire humbly to returne to the way of truth fewe things will suffice But those whoe ar addicted to contentions determined to persiste in their infidelitie would not be satisfyed althou manie reasons should be proposed vnto them Diuinitus Wherfore we beleeue that the terrestriall substances which in the table of our lord ar diuinely sanctifyed by preistlie ministration ar infallibly incomprehensibly admirably by operation of supernaturall power conuerted in to the essence of our lordes bodie the species or formes of the things thē selues remaining with some other qualities least the receiuers should abhorre crude cruent things Cruda cruenta to the end that the credents or beleeuers might receiue more ample rewardes of their faith the bodie of Christ it selfe existing neuerthelesse in heauen at the reight hand of his Father Illeso immortall vnuiolated intyre incontaminated vnhurt soe that it may truely be affirmed that we receiue the bodie of Christ which he assumed of the Virgin and yet not the same The same truly in respect of the proporties of true nature and virtue but not the same if you respect the species or formes of bread and wine and the rest before comprehended This faith from ancient tymes did hould and now holdeth that Church which diffused throù the whole world is named Catholique whence it is that as it is said before our lord said in the Euangill Receiue and eate this is my bodie And this is the chalis of my bloud c. In this cleare manner speaketh Lanfranc of the reall presence in this place And page 346. of the same booke he saith thus speaking of Ecclesiasticall histories Which Scriptures saith he altho' they doe not obtaine that most excellent tower of authoritie which those doe which we cal Propheticall and Euangelicall scriptures yet they ar sufficiēt to proue that this faith which now we haue all faithfull people which haue gone before vs haue had the same from priuatiue tymes A primis temporibus And page 347. the same Lanfranc directing his speech to Berengarie addeth thus more ower if that be true which thou beleeues and maintaines of the bodie of Christ vbique gentium it is false which the church beleeues of the same matter in euerie natiō For all those whoe reioyce to be called and to bee Christians doe glorie in that they receiue in this sacrament the true flesh and bloud of Christs bodie receiued from the virgin Inquire of all such as haue knouledge of the latin tongue and of our writings Inquire of the Grecians Armeniās or of Christian people of anie nation what soeuer they will with one mouth testifye that they haue this faith Furthermore if the faith of the vniuersall church be false either ther neuer was Catholique church or she hath perished nothing is more efficatious for the perishing of soules then a pernicious error But no Catholique will graunt that the church either was not or that she hath perished In this plaine sorte testifyes Lanfranc of the faith of the vniuersall church in which it were madnes to imagine he did not include his owne I meane the church of England And supposing he liued writ this the verie next age following the age in which Alfric dyed to wit in some parte of the leuēth centurie it is more then monsterous impudencie in our aduersaries to affirme that in the dayes of Alfric the denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation was commonely preached and beleeued in the Realme of England Further more Pascasius Rathbertus writ a booke intituled of the bodie and bloud of our lord against the doctrine of Bertram as is cōmōly supposed althoù I finde him not named by Pascasius he hath alsoe an Epistle of the same subiect to one Frudegard with an exposition of those wordes of the Euangelist Math. 26. Caenantibus autem illis c. In all which writings Pascasius most plainely defendeth both the reall presence and transsubstantiation most frequently repeating and inculcating that the same bodie and bloud which Christ receiued of the Virgin Marie and the same in which he was crucifyed is really and truely present in the Eucharist and offered in sacrifice I need not relate his wordes for euerie particular because I knowe our aduersaries can not denye but that this Author is plainely for the Romanists and flat against them in those points of doctrine onely I will rehearse some generall wordes of his in which he declares the faith of the vniuersall church in and before his tymes for after testimonies of diuers āciēt fathers alledged to this purpose in the conclusion of the foresaid wordes of S. Mathewe thus he saith Ecce habes amantissime c. Behould most louing brother thou haste in the end of this little booke the sentences of the Catholique Fathers compendiously noted by which thou maist learne that I haue not seene such things in rashnes of speech when I was a child but that I haue proposed them by diuine authoritie and by the authoritie of the holye Fathers to such as demaunded them But now it being cleare that Since that tyme the faith of all men is not one and the same then cease I praye to beleeue with such as they bee if as yet they can not vnderstand that nothing is impossible to God and lett them learne to assent vnto the diuine wurdes in all things to doubt nothing of those For till this present no man is read to haue erred in them except those whoe erred aboute Christ himselfe notobstanding manie doubted or haue ben ignorant of the Sacraments of soe great a Mysterie And afterwardes the same author in the same treatise saith thus Qua expleta voce c. Which wordes being pronounced meaning the wordes of consecration we all with one consonant voyce say Amen And soe the whole Church in all nations and languages doth pray and confesse that it is that thing which she prayeth for wherby let him whoe will rather contradict this then beleeue it regarde what he doth against our lord him self against the whole Church of Christ Therfore it is a nefarious and detestable villanie to pray with all and not to beleeue that which truth it self doth testifye and that which vniuersally all in euerie place doe teach Whence it is that since he him selfe affirmes it is his bodie and his bloud doubt ought not to be made in anie thing altho' we see not with carnall yes that which we beleeue We haue seene alsoe what Pope Gregorie houldeth of this what
after the coronation of Ethelred lib. 1. de Pont Aug. pag. 203. And he sate 11. yeares in that place as Malerburie relates But now Vlsine as it appeares by a breef of Iohn the 15. Pope of this name touching the peace he composed betwixt king Ethelred and Richard marques of Normandie was Byshop of Sherbourne aboute the yeare 991. of which yeare the Popes letter carieth date in which althou the Pope doth not call him Vlsine but Edelsine yet both by the tyme and place of his seat as alsoe for that ther is noe other in the Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne yeare the after in which I finde related by Ingulpsus Alfrics was Abbat of malesburie which resembleth that name it is conuinced that this is the same man which the kinght calleth wulfstius and to whome he affirmes one of Abbat Alfrics Epistles to haue ben directed which neuershelesse is concluded to be false in regard that at that tyme of the date of the Popes Epistole to wit the yeare 991. Alfric was not Abbat but Bishop this hauing happened but fiue yeres before that Alfric then Bishop of wilton was assumpted to the Arcgbishoprie of Canterburie which was the yeare 996. as all agreeably testifye Now if our aduersaries should say that this Vlsius Vlsine or Edelsine is not that Bishop of Sherbourne to whome they meane that Alfric writ his Epistle but an other long before him called wulfstius To this I replye first that I finde not this name of wulfstius in anie author or Catalogue of the Bishops of Sherbourne and soe I suspect it is a tricke of knight Hūfrey whoe as it seemes first inuēted the name Westminst an 940. supposing I finde it not in anie other either freīde or for the name of anie Bishop of that seat Secondly It is true histories make mention of one Vlsius Bishop of that seat and successor to Alfred but neither the name agrees to knight Humfreyes feigned wulfstius neitheir was he then in the world when Alfric was Abbat but according to the catalogue annexed to Ingulphus deceased the yeare 966. For whose successor the same catalogue putteth Alfwoldus where 's yet it appeares by the testimonie of Ingulphus that Alfric was not Abbat till either in or after the yeare 970. by which it is cleare he could not write to this vlsius or wulfstius as Abbat in respect he was dead some yeares before Alfric was preferred to that place by appointement of king Edgar and soe this euasion is intercepted by the way and appeares to be frustrate and false Further more according to Bishop Vshers chronologie affirming that Alfric writ his homilie aboute 605. yeares a goe Alfric should haue writ the same the yeare 1026. or ther aboutes deriuing the accoūte frō the tyme of Vshers publicatiō of his booke for soe by putting fiue or six yeares which I suppose hath passed since the tyme of Vshers writing to the 605. yeares which he assigneth for the tyme in which Alfric writ ioining to all this 1026 or 7. the whole nūber amountes iust to 1632. which is the yeare we now liue in But this implyes impossibilitie in regarde it is receiued by both parties that Alfric dyed the yeare 1006. that is some 20. yeares before 1026. which Vsher assignes for the yeare of Alfric's writing the homilie by which it appeares that Primate Vsher is a most prime yea and a most vnmyndefull lyer in attributing this writing to Abbat Alfric And concerning the writing of Alfrics twoe supposed Epistles if Vsher meanes they were writ and directed to wulfsine and wulstane at this same tyme he is likewise manifestly conuinced of falsitie for that at the tyme assigned by him ther was no vlsius vlsine or wulfsine as he nameth him Bishop of sherbourne in the world to whome Alfric could haue directed anie writings the last of that name being dead the age before as I haue shewed as alsoe the first wulstan Arcbishop of yorke True it is the second wulstan of yorke was then a liue to wit vnto the yeare 1023. but then Alfric being dead Archbishop of Canterburie as I haue showed by Godwins Catalogue almost 20. yeares before the supposed direction of Epistles vnto him is euen in that respect concluded for repugnant and impossible with a plaine dissent of the author from him self as affirming the publication of these writings to haue happened in the dayes of Alfric yet onely aboute 605. yeares agoe More ouer these relators agrees in their Chronographie like dogges and cattes the partes of which hange togither as theeues hang vpon the gallowes neuer a one ioyning to an other For as I haue said Vsher affirmes Alfric Abbat's Saxon homilie to haue ben writen by him aboute 605. yeares which according to true computation considering the tyme in which Vsher writ this comes to fall about the yeare 1020. In the 2. §. of the 9. sect of his safe way But Sir Humfrey speaking of the same homilie saith it was publikely appointed to be read to the people on Easter day aboute the yeare 996. at which tyme Alfric was not Abbat but Arcbishop of Canterburie as euen our aduersaries them selues doe relate and soe these twoe brothers in Christ proceed not like brothers but repugne plainely one to an other in their accountes the knight affirming the foresaid homilie to haue ben published read some 24. yeares before Vsher alledgeth it to haue ben written Besydes this Alfric dyed Arcbishop of Canterburie the yeare 1006. Godwin in Alfric p. 65. according to Godwins Catalogue How then could he possible write his homilie aboute 605. yeares agoe as Vsher tells vs that is the yeare of our lord 1020. as I haue declared except Alfric did miraculously rise againe to broache the new English faith of the Eucharist which our aduersaries will needs defende for ancient thou ' it cost them as deare as the forgeing of a false historie More ouer the publisher of the same writings I meane the homilie and Epistles printed at London 1623. vnder the name of Alfric telles vs he writ them 700. yeares agoe in king Edga'rs tyme which falles iumpe with the yeare of Christ 923. if we counte from the tyme of the foresaid publicatiō of them And yet as both Malesburie Stowe the rest of our historians testifye Edgar was not created king vntill the yeare of our Souiour 959. soe that here is an apparent blurre in this wise Conographer's computation inuolueing both an impossibilitie in it self and a contradiction to the rest of his companions in this busines whoe as I haue declared attribute them to Alfric in the tyme of Ethelred aboute some 600. yeares since others some yeares before Lastely Fox in his Acts and monuments althou ' he doth not dissent from his followes excepting the fore said late publisser in his assignation of the tyme in which the homilie imputed to Alfric is by them affirmed to haue ben proposed for the instruction of the people in England viz.
is but onelie one in which it can be sayd with anie coulourable probabilitie that sainct Gregorie in anie of the places heere cited doth contradict the doctrine of the Roman Church that is the point of the Canon of the scriptures in which patricular althou ' he refused to giue the bookes of Machabees the title of Canonicall scripture as yet S. Augustine others did before him the rest of the writers for the most parte euer since haue donne whether it were because he ment onelie they were not contained in the Canon of the Iewes or for that the whole Church had not then declared them for Canonicall vnder that name Neuerthelesse he is not to be iudged more repugnant to the doctrine of the present Roman Church in that point then those who notobstanding that in the primitiue Church certaine bookes of the new Testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes others were doubted of yet now with infallible certaintie faith receaue them for diuine sacred scripture althou ' they were not accounted beleiued for such by all the orthodoxall Fathers of the Church in all former ages since the time of the Apostles who firste published them to the world Especiallie considering that the same sainct Gregorie neuer denyed neyther in the place cited nor in anie other of his workes but that as the declaration of the Church was sufficient to assure all faithfull people that those bookes of which before his dayes there had binne doubt were then trulie Canonicall scripture thou ' not knowne for such in euerie age before him so might the same succeeding Church in later times determine the like of those bookes which in his time so generallie vndoubtedlie were not as yet held for such Neyther according to the rules of diuinitie can that man be reputed not to be of the same religion of which another is because he now beleaueth some thing more in the materiall obiect of faith then the other did in that time in which he liued but at the most it can onelie be truelie verified that he hath the same habit of faith thou ' some what more extended in the obiect as neyther the Apostles were of a diuerse faith when they were firste instructed by Christe before his passion from that they had after his resurrection when yet doubtlesse they receaued more expresse extensiue knowledge in matters of faith then before they had receiued And sure I am S. Gregorie without exception cites both the booke of Tobie Ecclesiasticus sapience most frequentlie none of which bookes neuerthelesse the misreformers admit for the worde of God And till Sir Humfrey or some of his associates can produce out of S. Augustin S. Gregorie as plaine pregnant places either for his owne tenets or against the Roman doctrine as the Romanists haue long since produced for theirs as their workes vpon euerie seuerall controuersie make apparent let them for shame neuer claime them for theirs in anie one point of controuersie for notobstanding they make a plausible vse of some fewe patches of their more ambiguous ill construed ill related sentences yet turne but the iudicious vnpartiall reader to the bookes them selues he will ingenuouslie confesse absolutelie crye a loud all is ours And if it would please his maiestie of his royall clemencie to suffer vs freelie to make tryall of our cause by scripture Fathers I knowe which side would be founde minus habens manie graines to light But it is our great miserie yet in one sense our great happines to be so crossed curbed with seueritie of tēporal lawes that we cannot be safe in the most priuate corners much lesse can we appeare in any publike assemblie for defense of our Religion Vid. Bell. in quatuor Cōtr. tom valēt Anales fid But yet supposing that S. Gregorie had binne contrarie in that particular of the bookes of Machabies for touching the rest mentioned by the knight he is sufficientlie cleered from that imputation by Bellarmine other Romanists yet could it not possiblie proue that monstrous great proposition of our aduersarie to wit that S. Gregorie in his vndoubted writings directlie opposeth the Romish faith in the maine pointes thereof consequentlie from hence it manifestlie appeereth how farre Sir Humfrey hath walked by the way when in the end of his eleauenth section he auouched his reader should plainlie discerne how the later Popes Bishops doe differ from the former how these two Fathers of the Church meaning sainct Augustine sainct Gregorie concurre expresselie with the doctrine professed in the reformed Churches different from the Roman it being most apparent by the premisses that by anie thing which he hath heere produced out of the foresayd Fathers he hath neyther proued anie one point of his owne religiō nor disproued ours but hath onelie prestigiouslie deluded the eyes of the reader with a coulorable florish yet in realitie remaineth still in the same byway in which he hath hitherto walked separate from the royall street of the ancient Doctors of the primitiue Church Sec. 14. The next section being the fourteenth is that the ingenuous Romanists confesse that the Councells which they oppose against the Reformers were neyther called by lawfull authoritie nor to the right ends Heere I finde that to be most true which a pleasant Protestant pronounceth of the Puritans sayeing their religion willinglie admitts no founder but Bragger they flourished much about a time And in sober sadnes the best Sir Humfrey can make of his aduersaries confession throu ' out his whole worke in fauour of his doctrine doth nothing more then plainlie conuince him to be of no other progenie Neyther doe their confessions fit his purpose anie better then if he should put his shooes vpon his handes or his hose vpon his head A patterne of this you may see in this verie section in which how soeuer he vaunteth of the confession of his aduersaries that by two principall conditions as he sayth ancientlie in vse for the authoritie of Councells are both acknowledged to be abrogated by later Councells to wit because quoth the knight now a dayes the Pope calls Councells without right he his assemble them in their owne name for their owne ends for proofe of which calumnious position he cites but onely two authors those scarce held for sound mettle among the Romanists neyther yet doth eyther of them plainlie auerre his position as it is vttered by him but they onelie speake by way of reprehension of such abuses as might be practised in that nature by the malice of men without taxing the Pope or anie other in particular as the knight would maliciouslie inferre out of their wordes for the confirmation of the sinister opinion he hath of the Church of Rome her head in earth The rest which he hath in this section is but eyther his owne bare assertions those not true as that from
were by strong fauor of the secular power This is that in substance which Sir Hūfrey alledgeth out of Gerson yea an something more then he him self produceth And yet neuerthelesse as the reader may easily vnderstand there is nothing agreeable to the reformation of Luther and Caluin For Gerson onely reprehends and that iustely some particular persons in some particular countryes and in some particular obseruations which soe exactely and rigorously obserue theit rules lawes soe exorbitantly estreeme of them that they often tymes by indiscreet zeale are more diligent in performing them then they are in keeping the lawes of God and that they some tymes punish more seuerely a religious person offending against one of those monasticall rules or statutes or against one of the Popes preceps or lawes of the decretalls or others then they punish him whoe committeth adulterie or sacrilege Wher as those twoe false reformers Martin and Iohn were not content with this and to procure a reformation in some particular persons rules and statues but they tooke away all monasticall obseruations either of vowe rule or constitution and extingnissed all Ecclesiasticall lawes both of the Pope and Church as much as lay in their power violating euerting and razing the verie buildings of religious houses and consuming by fyre the bookes of the decretals and whole Canon lawes quyte destroying that and much more by rage and furie which Gerson out of a pious Christian zeale onely wished to haue amended Gerson complained of the euill life of fryres and nunnes with desire to haue them reformed and reduced to the obseruation of their ancient rules and constitutions onely excepting against the multiplicie and varietie of religious orders suntque per haec caelestia tonitruasublata prohibita damnata omnia istius generis vota penitissimè Lut. tom 2. fol. 272. But those companions in impietie Luther and Caluin would haue all religious and monasticall discipline wholely extingnished as Sacrilegious damnable and contrarie to the lawe of God vsing opprobrious speaches against all Religious persons their profession Gerson tooke to consideration whether the multitude and varietie of images might not be occasion of idolatrie in the simple people yet did not he reproue the due honor of them But our newe reformers or rather deformers either will haue no images at all in Churches as Caluinists or at the least they will not haue them honored with religious reuerence as Lutheranes reprouing all kinde of veneration or worship of them as superstitious and idolatrous Gerson onely reprehended the excesse as he apprehended in the canonization of soe manie newe saints the more religious obseruation of thers feastes then of the feastes of the Apostles by some particular persons or Churches but these twoe prophane fellowes allowe not of anie religious celebration of the feasts of either ancient or moderne saints neither of Apostles nor Euangelists neither of confessers nor martyres making account onely of the sabaoth day as they cōmonly call the sunday in that nature alsoe houlding the canonization of noe saints for either necessarie lawdable or authenticall desiring rather their memories should be extingiushed rhen reuerenced Gerson likewise comdemneth instely superstitions comitted by particular persons in the worship of saints vaine obseruations ouer great credulitie giuen by them to euerie passage recounted in some inauthentichall legendes yet admitting defending due moderate honor of saints the authentical true histories of their liues But our pretended reformers reiect all religious honor of Saintcts hould the relatiōs of their liues miracles for Apocriphall fabelous at the least of moderne saints Gerson defended the Roman doctrine of indulgences most Catholiquely as his treatice of that matter doth testifye Indulgentiarum cōcessio non est parui pendenda seu contemnenda sed amplectēda deuote in fide spe charitate Domini nostri Iesu Christi qui potestatem lium clauium Ecclesiasticarum dedit hominibus Gerson p. 2. act 23. and onely taxed some particular pardons of sinnes as he relates for saying soe manie pater nosters in such a Church before such an image calling them superstitious opiniōs and friuolous additions as hauing neuer ben approued by the Roman Church But our newe doctors masters Luther Caluin vtterly condemne all sortes of Indulgence graunted by the Pope yea and the power of the Church to graunte them Gersō speaking onely of some vitious Ecclesiastical persons reprehendes preists for that vnder the pretense of maydes they keepe cōcubines yet plainely supposing the lawe of Celibate or single life of cleargie to haue ben in vse in and before his tymes as a thing lawdable and fitting for their vocation quoniā assidue nostri sacerdotes sacris occupantur mysterijs quid diuinius quam vt continua polleant castitate Gers 2. part dialog de celib Act. 4 But those twoe luxurious imps the one a professed fryer the other a vowed priest according to their newe reformation teach it lawfull and laudable for preists not obstanding their vowes of chastitie to chāge the state of chastitie in to the state of mariage they being the first that gaue example of that sacrilegious action and leading the daunce them selues Gerson complaines that Cathedrall Churches are made dennes of theeues and consecrated monasteries markets Innes But by the followers of Luther and Caluin those holie cloysters are not onely made markets and Innes but euen stables and hogstyes Cathedrall Churches as it were common burses or exchanges for relation of newes and negotiations in which manifould iniustices and illicit contracts are plotted and accorded to the great profanation of the house of God ordained for onely prayer seruice and Sacrifyce soe that if Gerson were now aliue doubtlesse he would rather taxe the pretended reformers in this nature then those Catholique profaners of his owne tymes Gerson bids inquirie to be made if ther be not Apocryphall Scriptures and prayers introduced in the Church to the great preiudice of Christian faith not meaning of anie Scriptures or prayers approued for Canonicall and pious by the authoritie of the Roman Church as are the bookes of machibies Sapience Ecclesiasticus Tobie and Iudith and prayers to saints all which Gerson him selfe did receiue for such but he onely reprehendes such false Scriptures or prayers as some newfangled priuate persons had published and inuented with out warrant or authoritie of the prelates and gouernors of the Church But Luther Caluin and their schollers peremptoriely reiected and excluded out of the text and canon of seripture the forosayde bookes and some others as allsoe all manner of prayers to sainrs euen those prayers and kookes of scripture which had ben most anciently approued and read in the seruice of the vniuersall Church at the least since the tyme of Innocēt the first Pope of that name and soe vsed in the dayes of S. Augustin and euer since till the late dayes of Luther And now by this breefe collation or cōparision
that it plainely appeereth he doth rather demonstrate his owne bitternesse rancour towards her then with any probable argument shew any such disposition to remaine in her against any such vnion as hee pretendeth to desire Why then doth S. Humfrey complaine of that which is in a farre worse manner practised by himselfe and his owne brothers besides this I pray you doth the supposed bitternesse of F. Cāpian proue the bitternesse of the Roman Church could he alone bee the whole Roman Church who was but one onely member of it Or are his speeches or priuate positions to be attributed to the whole Church he being but one parte thereof and yet not the greatest what a false Metonymie is this if the head of the Church had vsed such speeches you would haue seemed to haue had some reason to haue attributed them to the whole because that which the head doth may induce a denomination vppon the rest of the body of which examples may be found euen in nature but whatsoeuer any other member doth it cannot rightly be attributed to the whole So that we now see that in this allegation S. Humfrey himselfe doth so carrie the matter and giueth the Church of Roome euen in this same section so much occasion of new disgusts as besides the rehearsed calumnies taxing her with creation of 12. new Articles and coyning of new expositions vpō the ould farre different from the doctrine of the Apostles and that she mayntaineth and practiseth manifest idolatry And the like most false and slanderous exprobrations that as I said before it plainely appeereth that he hath rather demonstrated his owne bitternes and rancour towards the Roman Church then shewed any such defect in her by any argument drowen from Father Campians wordes by him produced which wordes allthough by his quotation of Iewell in the margent he will seeme to haue taken them at secōd hand yet certainely it is a plaine imposture and so let them diuide it as they please betwixt themselues it being euer supposed that S. Humfrey and his Iewell are of equall authoritie with the Catholiks I meane of none at all Moreouer S. Humfteys whole drift in this section being to cleere his owne Church from the infamous brand of Apostacy he imposeth the whole cause of separation vpon the Roman Church and produceth Erasmus for a wittnes of the same who being demaunded for sooth of the duke of Saxonie what was Luthers capitall offence that stirred vp so many opposites against him made answer that Luther had committed two greate crimes for he had taken away the Crowne from the Pope and had taken downe the belly of the monkes To which saying of answer that Erasmus is no competent wittnes against the Roman Church especially in a case where his sole testimonie is interposed And if S. Humfrey had ben circumspect he would not haue cited Erasmus his answere for this purpose as containing one manifest lye if not twb. For neither did Luther euer take the Crowne from the Pope which as the world knowes he still enioyeth maugre him and all his adherents neither did Luther euer take downe the bellies of the monkes except it was by iniuste vsurpation and rapin to fill his owne and to leade his lyfe in luxurious concubinate with breach of his vowes to god and man Immediately before this momicall passage of Luther out of Erasmus which although S. Humfrey produced to colour the pretended Reformers diuisiō from the Church of Rome yet doth it farre more strongly argue a cause in the Pope iustely to reiect them then anie excuse of their preposterous separation before this I say he cited a place out of the Prophet Ose which because it makes nothing to this purpose Cap. 4.15.17 but onely vpon his owne false supposition that the Roman Church is wicked and idolatrous therefore vntill I see him prooue his supposition which yet I know he will neuer be able to performe I leaue it as impertinent as also I omit the examples he brings of Abrahams departure out of Caldea and of the Iewes out of Egypt which are as farre from the case we treate of as Egypt is from Europe or Christendome from Iewrye Therefore I will onely giue notice to the reader how grossely he abuseth certaine authours he cytes to testifye that by Babylon is meant the Christian Rome For ther is not one of those authours that affirmes that after it was conuerted to the Christian faith it was called Babylon according as the scripture vsually speakes of Babylon either properly or Metaphorically Neither is ther likewise anie of the same authours which teach that since the conuersion of that Citye to the faith of Christ Christians ought to departe from it as out of a spirituall and idolatrous Babylon which is that our aduersarie here intendes to proue or at the least ought to proue if anie thing he meanes to prooue against the Romanists And to speake first of the ancient authours here cyted by the kinght which are Tertulliā S. Hierome and S. Augustin it is directly impossible that they should meane by Babylon the Roman Church depraued by anie idolatrie of Christian people for that they were all departed out of the world before the supposed departure of the Roman Church from the true Religion is affirmed by our newe sectaries to haue begun which as they most commonly teach was not before the 600. yeare after the tyme of Christ our Sauiour Now as for the moderne authours to wit Orosius Viues Bellarmin and Baronius and Ribera they are all knowne Romanists yea and some of them cheefe defendours of the Roman Church and faith and so it is euident by this reason alone that they had not such a thought as to meane by Babylon the Roman Church Cap. 22. Viues vpon the 18. booke de cuit Dei explicates him selfe plainely saying Petrus Apostolus Roman Babylonem appellat vt etiam Hyeronymus in vita Marci interpretatur qui ad Marcellam scribens non aliam existimat describi à Ioanne in Apocalypsi Babylonem quam Vrbem Romam Bellarmin also speakes yet plainer in the verie place cited by S. Humfrey viz. lib. 2. de Rom. Pont. cap. 2. for he saith Respondeo Babylonem vocari non Romanam Ecclesiam sed Romanā vrbem qualis erat Ioannis tempore Orosius I haue not But let Baronius speake for him selfe and others Baron Adam 45. Nec per somninm quidem quis vnquam inuenit Romanam Ecclesiam esse Babylonis nomine nuncupatam sed ipsā tantummodô ciuitatem ac id quidem non semper sed cum impietate referta aduersus ipsam Ecclesiam bellum gereret Ribera vnderstands by Babylon persecuting Rome not as it is nowe I need not cite his wordes in a case so cleare So that nowe I doe not see why S. Humfrey produced these authors except it were by corruption of them to make them precursors of his corrupted way And hence also the reader may gather how weakely the knight
salubres obseruationes si qui abusus irrepserint eos prorsus aboleri sancta Synodus cupit ita vt nullae falsi dogmatis imagines rudibus periculosae errorem praebentes statuantur c. Con. Trid. sess â—5 init Another fault sir Humfrey committeth also in that he affirmeth that this corruption which S. Augustin and the Church of his time condemned for superstition was confirmed 400. yeeres after by the second Councell of Nice for Catholike doctrine and is now decreed by the Councell of Trent for an article of faith Thus the knight But this is all false and grounded onelie vpon an erroneous persuasion of his owne videlicet that the worship which those people of which S. Augustin speaketh gaue to pictures is the same which the Roman Church practizeth at this daye according to the definition of those two Councells that which he neither proueth heere nor can euer proue in anie other place as being manifest by the doctrine of those same Councells in this point that they both condemned this superstitious practice of those people reprehended by S. Augustin the Church of his age eueÌ„ as much as he did in those former tymes And so neither this instance framed by Sir Humfrey out of S. Augustins wordes nor the whole argument it selfe concludes any part of his intent in this section but rather conuinceth by the fact of the same S. Augustin that no errour can possible so secretlie steale into the Church but it is either presently or within a small tyme espied and noted for such by one authenticall authour or other which is quite contrary to the position which the knight indeauoureth heere to establish and whoely conformable to the tenet of the Roman Church in this matter After this Sir Hum. maketh a large repetition of diuerse points of doctrine defended by the Church of Rome as if they were farre different from the intention of those who first taught or ordeined them but for this his conceipt he bringeth no proofe at all and so I leaue it as a voluntary tenet founded vpon his owne small authority True it is he produceth diuerse authours for the confirmation of the same alledging them all for Romanists and yet some of them are not so esteemed to be as is manifest in Cassander and Agrippa which the Roman Church houlds not for her true children but rather for illegitimate Be citeth also Ioannes Ferus who altho' he was at the lest once a Romanist whatsoeuer he was afterwardes yet there haue beene noted in his workes diuerse ill sounding propositions whether it be for that his bookes haue beene corrupted by the sectaries of these times as by some editions of his workes may be iustly suspected or whether it be that the man was something more rash in his assertions then he ought to haue beene But howsoeuer it falleth out with him in that nature yet the place cited out of him by Sir Humfrey if it be rightly vnderstood it proueth no more but that by the priuate abuses and superstitioÌ„s of some particular men many things ordeined by holy men with a good intention haue receiued some accidentall chaunge And although Ferus exemplifieth in the feasts of the Church Ceremonies images Masses monasteries yet certaine it is his meaning was not that all these are either vnlawfull or superstitious or that they are new articles of faith or not to be vsed in the Church of God as the knight and his coÌ„panions would haue theÌ„ to be but onely out of a pious zeale he wished that such abuses might be corrected as he perceiued in his daies to haue crept into the practice and vse of the same which is a thing so farre from Sir Humfreys purpose of prouing an alteration in the Doctrine of auncient tymes as it is both very conformable to reason and allso to the decree of reformation made in the Councell of Trent aboue cited He citeth allso Marius de schis Concil Et Polidore de inuent rerum as speaking of the vncertainty of the entrance into the Church of Priests mariage But this is nothing to the purpose the knight heere treateth For how I pray you doth this proue that there are errours of faith in the RomaÌ„ Church whereas the restraint of mariage of Priests it selfe is no article of faith as Sir Humfrey ignorantly supposeth but onely a precept of the Church and a matter of manners and yet in case it were so in it selfe neuerthelesse certaine it is that the question or difficultie about the first begining of the restraint of such onelie the cited authours speake is no matter of faith and consequentlie can be no errour euen in Sir Humfreyes owne false supposition of errours in the Roman Church To omitte that suppose the first begining of the restrainte of marriage in Priests were truelie an article of faith in the Roman Church yet this being but one particular instance or example drawne out of two Romanists onelie it cannot sufficientlie proue that generall position of Sir Humfrey to witte that there was a knowne tyme when those tenets meaning the points of doctrine which the Councell of Trent defined were not certainelie knowne or generallie receiued by the Roman Church since that according to the rules of Logike no generall proposition can be inferred out of a particular and that touching the rest of the articles of the Roman doctrine the reformers are so farre from the assignation of the time of their beginning that Sir Humfrey him selfe euen in this verie place is forced to hould this precise tyme of the beginning of the same to be vnnecessarie to be assigned And altho' by reason that both those authours are ceÌ„sured in the expurgatorie Index we are not bouÌ„de to giue credit vnto them yet this I saye that supposing they are both here produced to testifie that the beginning of the and prohibition of Preists mariage can not be assigned it is rather a great argument that it was appointed by the primatiue Church itselfe then introduced of later yeares Besides this Sir Humfrey doth falsifie Polydor in the place he citeth for he doth not affirme that mariage of Preists was not altogether prohibited til the tyme of Gregorie the 7. but that it could not be taken away till that tyme. Alijs snper alijs promulgatis legibus non ante Pontificatum Gregorij 7. coniugium adimi occidentalibus sacerdotibus potuit Pol. lib. 5. cap. 4. edit Antuerp 1554. Cassander altho' Romanists esteeme not of his authoritie either pro or contra yet here he is corrupted by Sir Humfrey for companie lest he should laff at his followes where for those wordes non temerè reperies thou shalt not easilie finde he translates was not expresselie defined speaking of the number of the 7. SacrameÌ„ts of which Cassander saith that a man shall not easilie finde anie who haue constituted anie certaine determinate number of Sacraments before Peter Lombard non temerè quenquaÌ„ reperies ante Petrum LombarduÌ„ qui certuÌ„ aliquem
fathers of the primatiue Church so the knight by which discourse you may easilie perceiue euen by his owne wordes and the if which he maketh that all which he hath hitherto said hath no greater warrant then his owne suretie which although his authoritie and credit were farre greater then either we haue found it to be or it can be in it selfe yet were it not safe for anie man to relie vpon it but rather to hould it for verie vncertaine and fayleable Especiallie considering that all which he hath produced in proofe of the same are either meere trifles or at the most verie poore arguments grounded vpon false suppositions yea and vpon plaine vntrueths falsifications and corruptions both of scripture and fathers and so partlie through ignorance and partlie through malice he hath shewed himselfe a most partiall and false Herold And now altho' this might suffice for the censure of the section insuing because it pertaineth to the same subiect yet least the knigth should grūble I will a forde it a Period a parte THE VII PERIOD IN his eight section therefore Sir Humfrey promiseth to produce testimonies of his aduersaries touching the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Protestant faith in generall So he proceedeth in the title To which he addeth by way of asseueration that if the Roman Church doth not confesse that the reformers are both in the more certaine and Safer waye in the Protestant Church I will saith he neither refuse the name nor the punishment due to heresie Heere we see the knight is as free in his promises as euer he was let vs therefore examen how he performeth them for if he doth not he cannot escape either the name of an heretike or at the least the desert of punishment itselfe euen in this mortall life Hee beginneth thus He that shall question vs where our Church was before Luther let him looke back to the Primatiue Church nay let him but looke into the bosome of the present Roman Church and he shall finde that if euer antiquitie and vniuersallitie were markes of the true Church of right and necessitie they must belong to ours So Sir Humfrey In which wordes as it were by way of generall assertion he briefelie declareth the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his Church to be found both in the Primatiue Church and also in the present Roman Church in which assertion there being two partes and that no small ones the first he endeauoureth to proue by shewing a conformitie betwene the doctrine of the Church of England with that of the Primatiue Church and descending to particulars he tells vs that his Church teacheth and beleeueth the same three Creedes which were instituted by the Apostles and the Fathers of the Primatiue Church and not created by Luther as also two of the seauen Sacraments which were saith he by the confession of our aduersaries instituted by Christ The same he affirmeth of 22. bookes of Canonicall Scripture which he saith were vniuersallie receiued in all ages Likewise of the seuen generall Councells he affirmeth that foure of them were ratified by the Cannons of the Church of England and confirmed by act of parliament and thus he runneth through the points of doctrine and faith in which they and we agree adding to them the confession of his aduersaries And yet in all his large rehearsall of points of faith he maketh no mention of eyther those in which the Romanists and reformers disagree nor of those new articles of the English Creede which dissent from the doctrine of the Primatiue Church and which indeede are those that make the reformers guiltie of heresie as its the doctrine of Iustification by faith onelie the deniall of the reall presence and such like But craftilie leauing them out as if they were not to the purpose he treateth whereas in trueth by reason of these new errours obstinatelie defended by them there can be no vniuersalitie nor antiquitie in their Church notwithstanding they had neuer so great conformitie both to the auncient primatiue and moderne Roman Church in all the rest of their beleefe Especiallie supposing that anie one errour in matter of faith obstinatelie defended is sufficient to take away all true antiquitie and vniuersallitie of anie Church or congregation whatsoeuer as euen the reformers themselues as I suppose cannot denie for that as the scripture affirmeth that he who offends in one thing is made guiltie of all the rest so he that in one onelie poynt of faith houldeth contrarie to the most vniuersall and auncient Church maketh himselfe presentlie guiltie of want or defect both of vniuersalitie and antiquitie in his beleefe For as Saint Nazianzene saith to this purpose in his 37. oration towards the end the articles of faith are like to a gould chaine from which if you take away anie one link as Saint Ambrose saith Ad cap. 9. Lucae lib. 6. in fine you take away your saluation vnum horum saith he si detraxeris tetraxisti salutem tuam And so we see that the knight by reason he omitteth in his discourse that part vpon which the verie medium of his argument chiefelie or at the least greatelie depended his proofe of antiquitie and vniuersality in his Church falleth to the groūd But besides this defect he fayleth also in that he saith he beleeueth the three Creedes instituted by the Apostles and Primatiue Fathers of the Church For either he meanes that those three Creedes do sufficientlie conteyne all that he is bound to beleeue or no. If the first he meaneth then what will become of his solifidian iustification and of the 39. articles of the English faith the greater parte of which is not to be found in those Creedes If he meanes the second then doth he ill in leauing those particulars out in the rehearsall of his faith Nay more then this for if matters were well examined I doubt not but the knight notwithstanding the protestatiō of his faith of the three Creeds yet he would be founde holting in the true generally receiued or Catholike sēse of diuers of the same as that of the perpetuall virginity of the mother of God in that of the descēt of Christ in to hell of the Catholike Church the cōmunion of Saincts remission of sinnes and the like I say of the doctrine of the 4. first Generall Councels and of the Sacraments in which particulars our aduersaries vnderpresēce of reformatiō maintaine diuers deformed errours specified and confuted by diuines of the Roman Church Moreouer the knight is also defectiue in the proofe of the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith and doth egregiously equiuocate in that he saith that two of the Sacraments which the Church of Rome houldeth are professed by the reformers and confessed by their aduersaries to haue beene instituted by Christ not broached by Luther This I say is equiuocall and doth not prooue his intent for although it neither is nor can be denied but ingenuously confessed by the Roman Church that there are two
Sacraments yet doth she not confesse that there are onely two Sacraments instituted by Christ as the reformers professe but houldeth and beleeueth fiue more as well as those two to haue beene instituted by Christ which fiue being denyed or at the least three or foure of them both by Luther and the rest of the pretended reformers and on the contrary hauing beene receiued for Sacramēts in aūcient times as afterwards shall be declared the deniers of thē whosoeuer they be cannot rightly claime either antiquity of vniuersality of doctrine in that particular And the same may be said for the same reason of the 22. bookes of Scripture and the seuen first generall Councells in the which he faith of the reformers is neither aunciēt nor vniuersall first for that they hould those twenty two bookes for canonicall Scripture exclude all the rest out of the canō which neuerthelesse as appeareth by the testimony of S. Augustin herecited in the margē Totus autem canon Scripturarum in quo istam considerationē versandam dicimus his libris continetur Quinque Moyses c. Tobias Hester Iudith Machabeorū libri duo Esdrae duo Et postea Nam illi duo libri vnus qui sapientiae alius qui Ecclesiasticus inscribitur de quadam similitudine Salomonis esse dicuntur nam Iesus filius Sciach eos scripsisse constātisse perhibetur qui tamē quoniam in authoritatem recipi meruerūt inter propheticos numerādi sunt Aug. l. 2. de docti Christiana c. 8. were also canonicall in the auncient Church And secondly because they receiue but onely foure of those seuen generall Councels which neuerthelesse Sir Hūfrey himselfe here confesseth to haue beene genenerall by giuing them all that title as well as the four first To omit other generall Councels which he his brothers violently reiect And now touching Apostolicall traditions Sir Humfrey doth no lesse plainely Sophisticate then in the former points for that it is well knowne that the reformers either hould no traditions at all to be beleeued but rely wholy vpon pure or sole Scripture as the totall rule of their faith or if they hould any traditiōs to be necessary yet do not they hould all those which the auncient now the moderne Roman Church doth hould and consequently their manner of houlding Apostolicall traditions is in words onely and hath no true discent from the Apostles nor any vniuersality or antiquity at all as neither hath their booke of common prayer manner of ordination and vocation of Ministers or Pastours and so altho' they haue some parte both of the auncient liturgie and also of the Apostolicall māner of ordination yet because they doe not wholy agree with them no not in the substance and essentiall parts of the action that is to say not in the consecration of the Eucharist nor in the essentiall forme and matter of order which are the wordes and imposition of hands they are defectiue in the antiquity and vniuersality of the same in regard that the manner and forme of prayer and administrations of Sacraments which the reformed Churches vse at this present is different from that of the auncient Church neuer knowne nor heard of in former ages but broach by Luther and his sectatours quite contrary to that which the knight affirmeth and indeauoureth to prooue as by comparing their Church seruice their booke of common prayer and of ordination of Ministers with the auncient liturgies as that of Sainct Iames Sainct Basil Sainct Chrisostome and others doth clearely appeare as also by confronting the same with the writings of the auncient Fathers and their formes of administration of Sacraments by which we shall finde a maine difference betwixt the one and the other in regard that in those auncient monuments of antiquitie be founde sacrifice oblation altar incense hoste chalis holy oyle Chrysme and the like But in the forme of seruice and administration of Sacraments vsed now in the pretensiue reformed Churches ther is none of this to be found or hearde By which it may farther appeare that it is no silly or senseles question as our aduersarie would haue it to demaunde of the reformers where their Church was before Luther Because it hath nowe beene made manifest that allthough some parte of their doctrine that I meane in which they and the Romanists agree hath both vniuersality and antiquity if it be considered in it selfe yet diuerse other points of it hath neither the one nor the other That which cannot be found in the doctrine of the Romā Church for that allthough it is true that some parte thereof was not expressely definde as matter of faith before the tyme of the later Councells and sectaries who by their defection from the euer succeeding Roman Church and their new errours gaue occasion of new declarations of some particular points yet were those neither new in them selues nor first broached taught by the foresaid councells but onely they by their authority determined established for certaine doctrine that which diuerse nouellists presumptuously brought in question the same neuerthelesse in all the ages before Luther hauing bene both aunciently and vniuersally tought or at the least by many doctours of the Church with out contradiction of the rest or perhaps if anie were of a different opinion it was because matters were not then so plainely declared by the Church and vnder her correction And so the question proposed by the Romanists to the reformers can neither be rightly detorted vpon them as the knight vainely auerreth nor yet can the reformers euer be able to answer it as plainely appeareth both by that with hath beene allready said as allso by the doctrine of their 39. articles diuerse of which are not onely new in themselues and neuer heard of in auncient tymes but allso expressely broached by Luther himselfe and that not only in negatiue but allso in some positiue doctrine as is euident particularly in the point of iustisicatiō by faith alone And hence allso it is manifestly inferred how vntruely the knight affirmeth in his 77. page that noe Romanist can deny but that the doctrine of the reformers lay inuolued in the bosome of the Roman Church as corne couered with chaffe or gould with drosse for neither is it true that either all the doctrine of the reformers hath beene in the Church before Luther as I haue showed nor yet that any Romanist euer affirmed the same so S. Hūfrey deliuereth two falsities vnder one forme of speech continuing the same for the space of a whole leafe grounding his discourse vpō false suppositions equiuocatiōs promising to produce testimonies of his aduersarie the Romanists for the antiquity and vniuersalitie of the protestāt faith he meanes the Puritan faith in generall yet produceth not one for the same excepting Pope Adrian the 6. and Costerus and D. Harding in Iewell none of which three authours proue S. Humfrey intent Costerus and Harding onely speaking of one or two
particular points that in no matter of faith to wit aboute the manner of the introduction of communion vnder one kinde and priuate Masse into the Church as their owne wordes declare And as for Pope Adrian his owne wordes truely and compleatly cyted showe him to speake onely of the conditionall adoration of Christ in the Eucharist in case the hoste should not be consecrated and so he is here produced by the knight both most falsely and most ridiculously to proue for sooth that the Romanists excuse their absolute adoration of Christ in the Sacrament by that conditionall I adore theif thou be Christ which manner of adoration neuerthelesse they neuer vse but onely in speciall cases of doubt whether the Preist performed his office according to Christ◠institution The Popes words are these in Latin Concilium Constantiense excusat simplices adorantes hostiam nō consecratam quia facite implicatur condition si consecration sit recte facta c. And now let the reader iudge how conueniently they be applyed to S. Hūfreys purpose of prouing absolutely that the Romanists excuse their adoration of Christ in that manner Further more Sir Humfrey doth not adduce any reason at all for the proofe of his antiquitie and vniuersality but onely vseth his owne conceiptes cōsisting mearely in iffes an andes or conditionall asseueratiōs thus quite throu ' the rest of his section he rides poste like a man that caries newes of a false victorie now and then dropping a lye by the way for the haste he maketh to come to the end of his iourney which is nothing els but his owne discredit which because it hath beene already sufficiently manifested I neede not goe to particulars for more proofe of the same especially for that I know I shall haue occasion hereafter to handle more largely all those seuerall points which our aduersary cōgesteth in this place rather by way of recrimination then of treaty as that Costerus Harding excuse the cōmunion and priuate Masse the one by saying that the cup was not taken away by the commaundement of the Bishops but that it crept in the Bishops conniuing ther at which he attributeth to Costerus the other that it is throu the negligence of the lay people that they cōmunicate not at euerie Masse which he ascribes to D. Harding All which is imposed by the knight vpon those two Catholike authours cōtrarie to their true sense and meaning for that as it is apparent by their owne wordes which I will rehearse in an other place they say not those things by way of excuse in regarde they know ther is no need of excuse wher no faulte is founde nor acknowledged it being certaine to them and all other Romanists that how soeuer priuate Masse and single communion were at first introduced yet they are both lawfully practized And so I conclude this section of his inroling il with the former censures or rather I may with greate reason frame a more rigorous censure for it in regard that the knight hauing promised more then before yet he hath performed lesse and hauing vnder the name and punishment due to heresie vndertaken to showe by the testimonies confession of his aduersaries the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of his faith that his way euen by the confession of the Romanists is more certaine then their owne yet he hath performed nothing but spent his whole discourse in equiuocations and iuggeling tricks and so he cannot possible escape the same sentence which his owne execration called vpon him THE VIII PERIOD THIS Period shall conteine the ninth section of S. Hūfreys booke with though by reason of the largenes of it he diuideth it in to seuerall paragraffes yet because they haue but small substance in them as he handleth them though otherwise they be in themselues matters of importance as alsoe for that his doctrine in te same points hath beene already in parte examined cōfuted therefore I will not stand to make so many seuerall distinctions in the treaty of them as he doth but reduce them all to one onely period briefely examining how farre those testimonies of Romanists which he promiseth to produce as witnesses of the antiquity of his owne doctrine and the nouelty of theirs doe reach in the particular points of the same He beginneth therefore with iustification by faith onely Page 85. I saith he will make it appeare that before and after the conquest the priests and professours of those tymes protested openly against the doctrine of Romish merits preaching saluation by Christ alone and with all publikely professed and administred the same sacraments in the same faith and truth which we teach and administer to this day Thus he proceedeth by way of assertion with a promise to make it appeare which assertion neuerthelesse contayning two partes yet neither of them is true but both either false or equiuocall or rather partely false and partely equiuocall The first parte is cleerely false in of it affirmeth that the priests and professours both before and after the conquest protested openly against Romish merits That this is false it is manifestly conuinced first because all the workes of learned men and histories both of England and other contries that write of that matter doe testifye that from the tyme of S. Gregories mission of S. Augustin into England to preach and establish the Roman faith to omit more auncient times both the Kings priests and people as well before as since the conquest haue continually professed the same Roman doctrine which then they receiued vntill the time of Henry the eight at the least and among the rest the very same doctrine of merits which now the Church of Rome defendeth As is diligently proued by the authour of the protestants apollogie in the first section of his first treaty the 63. page euen by the testimonies of Protestants themselues And what S. Gregories owne doctrine was in this particular he himselfe testifieth in his booke of moralls the 42. chap. saying that because in this life there is diuersitie of workes among vs therefore with out doubt there will be in that diuersitie of dignities to the end that as heare one doth surpasse another in merit so there one may transcend another in the retribution Thus Sainct Gregorie to whose testimonie as I could if neede were ioyne the expresse authorities of Fathers of precedent ages for witnesses of the doctrine of merits as of S. Augustin Hierome Ambrose Hilarie Cyp. Tertull. and other Grecian Doctours euen till the time of the priuatiue Church so may the consent of those who succeeded the the same S. Gregory be added for the confirmation of it S. Bernard to omit other places alledged by me in an other occasion in his 8. serm vpon the Cantic saith Omne quod feceris bonum malumne quod quidem non facere liberum sit meritò ad meritum deputatur Concilio Aran. can 18. debetur merces bonis operibus si fiant sed gratia
thē if two should argue the one that the colour of the sea water is greene and the other blewe that some ignorant Cockes-come should step in and tell them that it followes on their variance in opinion that the Sea water hath no colour at all Which who so euer should presume to doe he deserued to be soundlie hist at for his audacious follie so doth Sir Humfrey And as for Biell whome the knight cites saying it is not expressed in scripture how the body of Christ is in the Sacrament he hath indeed those wordes which are quoted by him tho' not in his 49. as he puts it but in his 40. lection vpon the Canon but yet this his saying is not contrarie to the Romanists who easilie admit that the manner of the existence or being of Christs bodie in the Eucharist is neither expressedlie declared in the Scripture nor yet in all ages and by all authours expressedlie tought in the Church as matter of faith neuerthelesse this authour himselfe in the same place addes in plaine wordes that now that opinion which defendes transubstantiation is receiued by all Catholikes yealding for a reason of the same because saith he we ought to hould of the Sacraments as the holie Roman Church doth hould And afterwards he addes Wherefore because by the determination of the Church conformable to the authorities of the holie Fathers we ought to beleeue that the bodie of Christ is in the Sacrament by conuersion of the bread into it we are to fee c. And the like I say of Scotus Yribarne his Scholar who altho' they seeme to diminish the antiquitie of transubstantiation yet their meaning onelie is that it was not in auncient times declaredlie proposed by Publike authoritie of the Church as an article of faith yet both of them expresselie beleeuing and defending the same professedlie as a matter of faith And by occasion of this I desire the reader to take notice that whensoeuer he findes anie Catholike authours to say that this or that doctrine was not a matter of faith before this or that time their meaning is not that the obiect in it selfe was no matter of faith in anie one time since it was first reueiled by God either expresselie in it selfe or as included in some other veritie but onelie that it was not expresselie and generallie knowne and beleeued for such by all faithfull people by reason it was as then not declared and proposed publikelie vnto them by the Church in anie Generall Councell For that as much as concernes the doctrine in itselfe it is no more an article of faith after the definition and declaration of the Church then it was euen before it was so defined as may appeare in the consubstantialitie of the eternall sonne with his eternall Father in the vnitie of person in Christ and the distinction of natures and the like which in them selues were reueiled verites and matter of faith euer since the newe Testament and the lawe of Christ was published to the world not obstanding they were not declaredlie and vniuersallie knowne for such in a long time after to wit not till the time of the Nicene Ephesin Chalcedon Councels in which they were defined and proposed for matter of faith against the Arian Nestorian Euthycian heretikes And according to this rule it passeth in our case of transubstantiation for declaration of which this breefe obseruation may suffice to satisfie anie indifferent mynde Nowe as I said of Scotus and Yribarne the like I say of Caietan cited by the knight out of suarez in his comment vpon S. Thomas page 108. who altho' in it vpon the first art Of the 15. quest he saith transubstantiation which ther he calles conuersion is not in the Euangell expresselie conuersio non habetur explicitein Euangelio and before he saith we expresselie receiued from the Church that which the Gospell did not explicate Yet afterwardes the same authour expresselie teaches and inculcates that those wordes this is my bodie cause both the reall presence and transubstantiation For thus addes Et perhoc verbae Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scrilicet conuersionis continentiae c. That is And by this because the wordes of Christ this is my bodie doe effect both nouelties videlicet of the conuersion and the containing By which wordes it is manifest what this authours meaning was absolutelie touching the reall presence transubstantiation howsoeuer he spoake of the manner in which it is cōtained in scripture which is not our questiō And in this sense speakes Aliaco when he saith in the place cited by our aduersarie that manner of meaning which supposeth the substance of the bread to remaine still a possible neither it is contrarie to reason nor to the authority of the scriptures c. For he meaneth onely it is not repugnant to anie such expresse scripture as doth conuince the transsubstantiatton plainely to euerie one without the authoritie and declaration of the Church and therfore he addeth if it could stand with the determination of the Church in which Aliaco showes such obedience to the Church as Sir Humfrey and his fellowes obstinately denie vnto her most piously captiuating his vnderstanding euen in that which he held more easie and conformable to reason and scripture according to humaine intelligence and discourse More euer touching the citation of Bishop Fisher contra cap. Babyl cap. 10. His intent in that place was onely to proue that meerly by the bare wordes of scripture without the traditionarie interpretation of the Fathers no certaintie can be had in questions of controuersie or matters of faith And to proue this which is a direct conclusion against Sir Humfrey and the rest of our nouelists he argueth exhiposthesi or vpon supposition saying that not obstanding it is true and certaine that our Sauiour by vertue of those wordes this is my bodie did make his owne bodie really present in the Sacrament yet if one were obstinate standing preciselie to the pure text without the interpretation of Fathers and sense of the Church he might denie that it doth thence followe that in our Masse Prests make really present the bodie of Christ Not meaning to affirme that they doe not in deed for that the rest of his booke doth demonstate him to beleeue the reall presence in Masse especially the fourth chapter but onely intending to declare by examples and reasons that it can not be conuinced that Catholike Prests doe so by pure scripture secluding the exposition of the Doctours of the Church and her infallible authoritie And now this being the true sense of B. Fishers discourse Sir Humfrey verie coningly by leauing out the precedent and subsequent wordes of the authour so manageth the matter as if he had flatly denied that the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ can be proued by anie scripture to be made in the Masse And that this is the true
the Romane Church now holdeth for true and proper Sacraments doe giue diuine grace to the receiuers as it is apparent out of those places which I cited before out of Saint Augustine for the proofe of euerie seuerall Sacrament and their seuerall effects and consequentlie they held implicitelie at the least and if either necessitie or iuste occasion had required they would haue concluded expresselie the septenarie number of Sacraments and that they were instituted by Christe for such truely and properly And now for the more moderne diuines who wrote since the time of P. Lumbard of which Sir Humfrey citeth to the number of twelue or thirteene there is not one of them who holdeth onely two proper Sacraments as the reformers doe nay there is not one of them that doth not expreslie defende the septenarie number of true and proper Sacraments excepting perhaps Alexander Hales and Durand may seeme to opinate otherwise to the incircūspect reader of which two authours neuerthelesse I say first that Hales doth not denie all those seauen nor anie one of them in particular which the Romane Church defendes to be trulie and properlie Sacraments but he onely is of opinion that onelie fower of them are to be called Sacraments of the new lawe for that as he imagined the other three to wit Pennance Order and Matrimonie had their beginning before True it is Hales cannot be excused from errour in that he affirmeth Confirmation to haue binne instituted by the Councell of Melda except he meaneth onelie that there it was declared to be properlie a Sacrament as I am persuaded he doth but neuerthelesse supposing this his singular opinion yet notwithstanding it being with all certayne that he holdeth the same Sacrament to be one of the seauen no lesse then he doth Pennance which yet he held as it seemeth to some later writers to haue binne instituted by the Apostles Iuxta numerum malorum spiritualiū debet sumi numerus Sacramētorum septem sunt differentiae morborū Hal. 4. part q. 8. mem 7. act 2. notwithstanding all this I say he is impertinentlie alleaged by the knight as an impugner of the Romane doctrine in the septenarie number of Sacraments which notwithstanding his other allucinations he as expresselie maintaines as other diuines doe as his owne wordes plainelie testifie saying thus in his 4. parte and eight question According to the number of spirituall diseases the number of Sacraments is to be taken there are seauen differences of diseases What therefore can be more manithē that this authour tought the compleat number of seuen Sacraments And as for Durand certaine it is that he doth not denie Matrimonie to be a Sacrament absolutelie as the reformers doe but he at the most onely affirmeth that it is not properly and vniuocallie a Sacrament conferring grace in the same manner the other six doe which opinion of his altho' as it sounds it can not stand firme with the doctrine of the Church yet this not our question and in case it were yet is there no reason why one mans priuate tenet nay nor the priuate tenet or errour of more then one or two should preiudicate the common doctrine of the Church both before and after him nor diminish her antiquitie and vniuersalitie in anie point of doctrine especiallie where there is no obstinacie in the authour as in these there was not neyther can the aduersaries drawe anie argument of force against the same in anie case out of one onelie authour or more if more there were contrarie to the torrent of all the rest To omit that as vasques noteth the same Durand in the same place expreslie affirmeth that it is an heresie to denie that Matrimonie is a Sacrament which doubtlesse is a cōcluding argumēt that when Durād affirmed Matrimonie not to be vniuocallie or iuste as the rest be a Sacramēt he did not absolutely deny it to be one of those seuē which the church did both then hold now houldeth to betrue Sacramēts but at the most he onely denied the truth propertie of it in that strict vniuocall manner of conferring iustificāt grace as he and other diuines affirme of the rest which being so then cannot the Reformers haue anie colour to alledge this testimonie either against the absolute truth of that Sacrament or against the Septenarie number of it with the other Nay more then this hauing now exactelie examined the matter I finde that Durand besides that he expresselie defendes the total number of seuen Sacraments disputing seuerallie of the nature of euerie one of them he doth in particular affirme of Matrimonie euen in his resolution or direct anser to the question absolutelie that it is a Sacrament and puts it in the last place for one of the seuen And these are his wordes in their seuerall places noted in the margent Tenendū est absolute quod matrimonium est Sacramētum Quia hoc determinauit Eccle. in 4. d. 26. q. 3. Et ita sunt invniuerso septē Sacramenta Idem d. 2. q. 2. n. 6. To which if we adde that which Capreolus doth testifie of the same durand all doubt of his true meaning in this point will quite vanish away Coactus fuit in vltimo opere cautius loqui vt scilicet confiteretur matrimonium esse vere proprie Sacramētum sed non vniuoce cum alijs nouae legis Sacramentis c. Capreolus in 4. sent d. 26. q. 1. §. For Capreolus saith that in his last worke or edition he was constrained to speake more cautelously soe that he confessed matoimonie to be truely and properly a Sacrament but not vniuocally By which and that also which I haue said before touching Alexander Hales the learned reader may perceiue that both the one and the other are against truth and reason alledged against the septenarie number of Sacraments and against the vniuersalitie of the doctrine of the Roman Church in that point supposing they differ not from the rest of the Romanists as their owne wordes witnesse Except it be in the manner of defending that same number yet both agreeing in the substance of the Controuersie here proposed by the knight our aduersarie Quantum ad tertium durandi and absolutelie affirming that there are truelie seuen Sacraments in the Catholike Church Moreouer in the citation of the other moderne diuines Sir Humfrey vseth much fraud and cosenage and remitting the rest till afterwardes which I will examen in their due places as they are quoted by the knight I will first produce those two whose bookes I had at the first and both of whome he egregiouslie abuseth Bellarmin is corrupted by him in three seuerall places cited in this one paragraph And first he is corrupted in his Second booke of the effect of Sacraments chap 24. where the Cardinall saying onelie that the aduersaries ought not to require of the Romanists that they shewe the name of the Septenarie number of the Sacraments either out of scripture or
Fathers Primo notandū non debere aduersarios petere vt ostendamus in scripturis aut Patribus nomē septenarij Sacramētorum nā nec ipsi possunt ostendere nomē Binarij vel ternarij c. Bellar. l. 2. de effect Sacr. c. 24. yet honest Sir Humfrey translates out of the Latin quoted in his owne margent the number of seuen for the name of the number of seuen repeating the same twise for fayling and so daceiues his ignorant reader persuading him there by that euen by Bellarmins confession the number of the seuen Sacraments is not to be found either in scriptures or Fathers whereas neuerthelesse Bellarmin saith no such thing but onelie that the name of the foresaid number is not to be required in that manner supposing that the substance of a thing is oftentimes found both in scriptures and Fathers and yet not the name it selfe as appeares in the worde Trinitie of persons and in the name of the number of two Sacraments neither of which is extant in scriptures Secondlie Bellarmin is corrupted in his booke of Extreme Vnction cap. 2. Non omnes cōueniunt an cum Apostoli vngebant olto infirmos Marci 6. curabant illa fuerit vnctio sacramentalis an solū fuerit figura quaedam c. Bellar. lib. de Sacr. Extrem Vnct. c. 2. Where the false knight makes his reader beleeue that Bellarmin was one of those who disagreed from the doctrine of other diuines in the doctrine of the fiue Sacraments which he and his companions denie to be truelie and properlie Sacraments and yet the Cardinall onelie affirmes with some other authours that that vnction which the Apostles vsed aboute the sick and restored them to health the 6. of S. Marke was not the Sacrament of Extreme Vnction but rather a figure or obumbration of it Which as you see is a farre different matter from the deniall of Extreme Vnction as it is vsed in the Church to be properlie a Sacrament or one of the fiue reiected by the pretensiue reformed Congregations Thirdlie the knight corrupteth Bellarmin whome he cites in the nynth chapter of his first booke of the Sacraments where he peruertes both the translation of the wordes and sense The wordes in that he Englisheth these non est ita notum it is not so certaine whereas he ought to haue translated it is not so knowne The sense he corrupteth in that he persuades his reader that Bellarmin confesseth that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution from christ immediatelie whereas he speakes not a worde of the institurion but affirmes onelie that the sacred things which the Sacraments signifie are three iustifying grace the passiō of Christ and eternall life all which that Baptisme and Eucharrst doe fignifie saith he res notissima est it is most notorious de alijs Sacramentis non est ita notum of the rest of the Sacraments it is not so notorious or knowne Yet further adding that it is certaine that euen these fiue Sacraments which the reformers reiect signifie all those three things at the least implicitlie But to saie that the foresaid fiue Sacraments haue not their institution immediatelie from Christ neuer entred in to Bellarmins thoughts tamen certum est saltem implicite ea omnia significare c. Bellar. loco cit And so if the knight had dealt playnelie and sincerelie in the citation of that place of the Cardinall he could haue found nothing for his purpose but rather the contrarie Furthermore Sir Humfrey also corrupteth vasquez most shamefullie in the 3. parte d. 2. cap. 5. n. 3. de Sacram. Matr. Where he impudentlie belyeth him affirming that Vasquez knewe well that neither moderne diuines nor auncient Fathers did conclude Matrimonie for a true Sacrament of the Church And yet the knight could not be ignorant that the same authour professedlie defendes the same to be trulie and properlie a Sacrament in the third chapter of the verie same disputation which he himselfe cites and in his 4. chap. Vasquez proueth it by the testimonies of diuers Fathers putting for parte of the title of the same chap. that the Vasquez de Mat. definition of the Church touching the truth of this Sacrament had foundation in the testimonies of the Fathers and who will please to read vasquez will finde it so In so much that Sir Humfrey in this particular is wholelie inexcusable especiallie considering that out of the place cited nothing can possiblie be collected or inferred wherebie it may in anie sorte be imagined that vasquez euer dreamed that either auncient Fathers or moderne diuines excepting durand and perhaps the Master of Sentences of whome he speakes doubtfullie not daring to affirme him absolutelie to haue beene of the same opinion with Durand as in truth he is not did conclude matrimonie not to be a true and proper Sacrament but onelie affirmes that none of the places which diuines alledge out of S. Augustin to proue the truth and propertie of that Sacrament conuince the same in the sense in which saith Vasquez we now dispute Which imagination of Vasquez tho' it were true as in my iudgement apparentlie it is not yet doth it not proue Sir Humfreys intent in disprouing the septenarie number of Sacraments Especiallie supposing as the same Vasquez affirmes Cō Carth. 4. that the fourth Councell of Carthage in which S. Augustin was present as a great member of the same makes mētion of the Benediction of the Preist vsed in mariage as in a holie and sacred thing Graunt I say that Vasquez opinion were true yet would it not serue the knights turne either for the poofe of his intent or for the excuse of his false and craftie dealing Next after Vasquez I will put Suarez althou ' according to the order of Sir Humfrey he is the first man he belies in this Poragraph in 3. part d. 12. sec 1. where he charges him to saye that the councell of Florence did insinuate the number of 7. Sacraments Propter quod tandem haec veritas definita est in Con. Flor. in decreto Eugenij quā Graeci Armeni facile cum Latinis suceperūt Suar. loc cit and the councell of Trent did expresselie decree it for an article of faith yet suarez sayes in plaine termes that the same was defyned in the councell of Florence So that here is false dealing with suarez and with the truth to make the point of the septenarie number of Sacraments seeme newe as ther is also in the wordes following in which the same Sir Humfrey affirmes that the Romanists relie wholely vpon the Tridentine councell Ambrose Austin Chrysostome and Bede be impertinently alleged For they none of them denie that the Sacraments are no more nor lesse then seuen And of S. Isidore it is falsely affirmed by Sir Humfrey that he accounteth but of 3. Sacraments for altho' in the place quoted by him he speakes onely of three which yet is more then the knight will
in the Gospell but in the Epistle what would Sir Humfrey replie to that But in earnest I haue vewed Bessarions treatie of the Eucharist where I finde that altho' he makes no plaine mention of the seuen Sacraments as not hauing anie iuste occasion there offered to handle that matter yet out of some passages of his discourse with other circumstāces there vnto annexed it is euidentlie gathered what his meaning and faith was touching the same For in the place cited by the knight and ther aboutes Cardinall Bessarion treates particularlie of the forme of the Sacrament of Eucharist prouing that it consists of no other wordes then those same which our Sauiour himselfe consecrated with and deliuered to the Church videlicet This is my bodie This is my bloud And by occasion of this he mentioneth Baptisme as being one of the two Sacraments which onelie haue their formes expresselie and in speciall termes contained in the Gospell and specified by Christ himselfe And therefore a little before that which Sir Humfrey cited out of this authour he saide Illud quoque haud contemnendum videtur quod cum duo nobis Sacramenta à Saluatore traditae fuerint Baptismus Eucharistia vtrumque verbis suis confici iussit By which wordes it is certaine cleare that he there speakes onelie of such Sacraments as our Sauiour most verbally or most expresselie ordained his disciples to consecrate and administer And now that this Cardinall did beleeue that there are more Sacraments then these it is euidentlie conuinced out of those his wordes fol. 169. saying Ante omniaigitur sciendum est tam hoc Sacrosanctum Communionis de quo agimus quam caetera Ecclesiae Sacramenta ideo sacra vocitari quoniam aliud in se habent quod videtur aliud quod non corporis oculis sed solo intellectu comprehenditur And after in the same page Etenim in Sacramento Baptismatis ablutio carnis per aquam ita est Sacrementum vt duntaxat signum sit ablutionis peccatorum Ipsa enim peccatorum remissio res est significata nihil vltra significans And to these wordes he presentlie addes that which is plainelie to our purpose to wit Hoc idem in reliquis Sacramētis Ergo in Sacramento Eucharistia And yet more plainelie f. 175. Quēadmodum in caeteris omnibus ita etiam in hoc Sacramento concordes sunt Occidenibus Orientales That is Euen as in all the rest so in this Sacrament the Occidentals that is the Romanists doe accorde with the Orientals that is the Grecians Besides this authour was a Greek Cardinall of the Roman Church and a cheefe agent and promoter for the vnion of the Latin and Greek Church in the Councell of Florence where the number of seuen Sacraments was defined and declared To omit that the same Bessarion fol. 181. makes expresse mention of the Sacrament of Confirmation for so he saith Quod manifestum fiet si quis ad Sacramentum Chrysmatis mentem conuerterit So that Sir Humfrey could scarce a chosen a worse Patron for proofe of his pare of deformed Sacraments then is this Cardinall if he had sought all Greece ouer it being manifest that he was a professed defender not onelie of the two Sacraments he mentioneth in the place cited by him but also a firme beleeuer of the other fiue which the pretended reformers renounce thrust violentlie out of the rancke of true Sacraments It is true I haue aduertised some smale sleight of Sir Humfrey in translating or transforming the worde manifeste in Latin into the worde plainelie in English but this but one of his diminutiue trickes and so I passe it ouer Onelie I desire the indifferent reader to reflect how peruers and incredulous a generation this is which refuseth to beleeue points of doctrine because they are not manifestelie contained in the scripture Whereas on the contrarie this most learned and Catholike Cardinall Bessarion altho' he graunted that two onelie Sacraments of the Church are so expressed in the written worde of God yet doth he with a firme and constant faith imbrace the rest S. Aug. is impertinētlie cited both in his third booke of Christian doctrine c. 9. and also de simbolo ad Cathecu l. 2. c. 6. in regarde that in neither of the places he speakes of two onely Sacramēts as his wordes cited by Sir Humfrey himselfe doe manifest Nay in the latter place he speakes not at all of proper Sacraments as his wordes following faithleslie omitted by our aduersarie doe declare for thus S. Austin finisheth his sentence Aqua in qua est sponsa purificata sanguis in quo inuenitur esse dotata That is water in which the spouse is purified and bloud in which she is founde to be endowed in which passage no mention is made of anie of the seuen Sacraments as the reader may plainelie perceiue Of S. Cypriā I saie the same I saide of S. Ambrose Austin the rest Vid. lib. de operib Card. sub nom Cyp. And yet more I know Sir Hūfrey will be loath to graūt fiue Sacramēts as S. Cyprian doth altho' we should giue him leaue to put the lotion of feet for one as S. Ambrose did put it for an vnproper Sacrament Dominicus à toto cited out of Bellarmin cap. 4. de Sacramento Ordinis doubteth not of Order in generall but he onelie makes a question of Episcopall Order in particular whether it be trulie a Sacrament and so he is ignorantlie and impertinentlie here alledged with abuse both of him and the reader As in like manner Suarez or rather Hugo Lombard Bonauenture Hales and Altisiodor Of whome altho' Suarez Tom. 4. de Sacramento Extremae Vnctionis affirmes that they were of opinion that Extreme Vnction was not instituted by Christ but by S. Iames from whence suarez saith id plainelie followes not to be a true Sacrament yet suarez himselfe addes which Sir Humfrey fraudulentlie left out that those authours denied the consequence By which it is manifest that those diuines absolutelie beleeued Extreme Vnction for one of the seuen Sacraments not obstanding their material errour aboute the institution of it which errour being impertinent to this present question of the septenarie number of Sacraments their testimonie was impertinentlie alledged and proueth nothing to our aduersaries purpose S. Bonauēture also is abused by the knight p. 165. where out of Chamier he carps him saying that for wante of better proofes he was prodigall of his conceiptes in honour of the septenarie number of Sacraments But here I finde greater prodigalitie in the dishoneste proceeding of Sir Humfrey and his master minister chamier in their iniuste taxeing of Bonauenture then I finde wante of proofes in that authour for if either Chamier or the knight had beene disposed they might haue found warrantable allegations in him out of scripture for the probation of euerie Sacrament in particular as his seuerall questions vpon them doe testifie But these men being much more disposed to cauille then to
in this paragraph among which I finde Cassander in the first rancke of corruption for altho' the testimonies which Cassander cites doe not proue fully his intent yet is it euident by the wordes of those he produceth that he speakes in that places of the Canon of the Masse especiallie when he sayes in the title of his chapter canonicam precem c. And Sir Humfrey translates it not the Canō of the Masse as he ought to haue done but Canonicall prayers so odious and reformidable vnto him is the reporte of that great Canon that he durst not name it Moreouer the testimonie of Cassander is detorted by Sir Humfrey quite from the sense in which he speakes it For he speakes not there of the vulgar tongue one worde but whether the Canon of the Masse ought to be pronounced with a lowde voyce especiallie the consecration that the people may heare it and anser Amen And the same I or Cassander forme me anser to the constitution of Iustinian which Cassander himselfe alledges to that same purpose and in no other sense And so in like manner the wordes of the Decretals are violentlie drawe to a sense repugnant to the authors meaning that is from doctrinall tongues to vulgar languages To the wordes of Lyra if he had dealt sincerelie Sir Humfrey ought to haue added those which immediatlie ensue and explicate his minde more clearelie Sed postquam populus multiplicatus fuit consueuit se conformare ministris Ecclesiae vtpote stando cum dicitur Euangelium deposito caputio adorando Eucharistiam consimilia fiunt in Ecclesia Latina in Latino sufficit quod Clericus respondeat pro populo expeditius enim fit hoc modo quam in vulgati But since the people increased and is accustomed to conforme it selfe to the ministers of the Church to wit by standing at the Gospell by puting of their bonet to adore the Eucharist and such like are done in the Latine Church in Latin and it is sufficient that the clearke ansers for the people for it is thus more readilie performed then in the vulgar tōgue Lyr. in 1. Cor. 14. Which wordes are so plaine against Sir Humfrey in diuers respects that he may be ashamed to heare them Belethus cited out of Cassander to proue that seruice and prayer must be in the vulgar language is abused by them both Inde etiam inoleuit vsus vel laudabilis cōsuetudo in Ecclesia vt pronūtiato literaliter Euāgelio statim in vulgari populo exponeretur Belet in Proae Exp. diuinorum offic For Belethus expresselie supposeth that the Masse and office of the Preist are in Latine and therefore euen in this same place and euen in some of the wordes cited by Cassander he mentioneth a laudable custome of some places an which sayth he the Gospell being pronounced it is presentlie expounded in the vulgar tongue Now if it were read in the Masse by the Preist in the vulgar tongue then it had beene vaine for Belethus yea and impertinent to haue made mention of that custome in the entrance of his worke of expounding the diuine offices for the vse of the lesse learned sorte of the Clergie as he professeth to vndertake It is true he hath in the same passage that it was prohibited to speake with tongues without an interpreter but that is nothing els but the very same which the Apostle himselfe declared 1. Cor. 14. vnderstanding by tongues the miraculous speech of strange languages which the speakers them selues did not vnderstand aboute which saith this author there was in the Primatiue Church a prohibition except it were with an interpreter And this is that which by accomodation Belethus applyes to the argument of his booke by way of Prologue In the rehearsall of D. Hardings wordes Sir Humfrey takes onelie those which testifie that in the Primatiue Church prayers were in the vulgar language But he leaues out the iuste reasons which the Doctor alledges for the alteration of the same made by the authoritie of the Church euen with in the first foure hundreth yeares as also he omits those pregnant proofes which he brings to showe that six hundreth yeares after Christ the seruice of the Church was in no other language then in Greeke or Latine By all which the reader may perceiue this author is not sincerelie dealt with in this passage that which yet will more plainelie appeare if he will please to see his anser to Iewels chalenge the 3. article The testimonie of Waldensis is vsed by Cassander onely to proue that diuine seruice or Masse ought to be pronounced with an intelligible voyce that the people may anser Amen but not to proue that the publike office must be in vulgar language and so it is impertinent Honorius cited by Sir Humfrey page 193. is falsified in regarde he is alledged for the cause of the alteration of the ancient custome of the vse of seruice in a knowne tongue For that author speakes not a word of the vulgar language but onely of the secret pronoūcing of the Canon which was decreed saith he I knowe not howe truely by occasion of a strange accident which happend in times past touching that matter Vnde sinodali decreto sub anathemate est praeceptum vt nullus Canonem nisi in libro in sacris vestibus super altare super sacrificium legat In which words I knowe not what linx except our Egleeyd Humfrey can see seruice in the vulgar tongue Gretzer is abused both in sense and wordes In sense because he speakes onely of the Latin tongue and of that time when it was either vulgar or very common to manie nations and yet the knight applyes his speech to proue that publike seruice ought to be deliuered in the vulgarly knowne tongue of euerie nation and at all times not contenting himselfe with lesse then this In wordes he doth also abuse Gretzerus for that he cites them neither intirely nor consequenter in English omitting or at the least altering those which haue relation to the authors precedent sentence to wit hinc illae exhortationes c. hence are those exhortations of the Fathers c. and also others before them which he ought to haue rehearsed compleatly because they are to the same purpose I will put the whole tenour of his wordes in the margen that the reader may more plainely see the fraude Latini Patres quos citat Whitakerus loqunn tur De eo tēpore quo lingua Latina erat multis gētibus vulgaris aut valde cōmunis hinc omnes simul psallebant Missae linguae populo nota celebātur quia Latina lingua erat omnibus vel plerisque nota Hincillae Patrū exhortationes vt omnes simul psallant vtque faciant attēte intelligibiliter vocēque suam cum Sacerdotum vocibus coniungant Quae admonitiones iustissimae erant quādoquidem lingua auditoribus non ignosa omnia peragebātur cōsuetudo ita ferebat vt tota ecclesia simul
then they plainelie prooue the reuerence of the Crosse to haue beene practized in auncient times or if they be to be read so generallie as the sectaries will haue them then if they proue anie thing they doe no lesse then reproue euen the Puritans themselues and their practice in that particular To the testimonie of Tertullian whom also so the knight produceth l. de idolat c. 5. saying Thou hast his law make thou no image And presētlie after make no image against the law vnlesse God commaunde the as he did moyses I answere first that if it be against the lawe to make anie image at all then be these wordes of Tertullian as much against the reformers as the Romanists For both the Church of England and all the Lutheran Churches at the least make both the images of Christ and his Apostles And I know a famous Puritan I meane a pure Caluinist whose name is Daniell Chamier who expresselie defendes that images are not absolutelie prohibited by that precept which he calleth the second commaundement Chamier lib. 2. de imag but onelie to the end to honore them religiouslie So that the wordes of Tertullian must of necessity be either otherwise tempered then they be by Sir Humfrey or they will fall vpon his owne Church as well as vpon the Roman Church Wherefore I answere secondlie that Tertullian speakes onelie against idolatrous images or Idols as the verie argument of his booke doth shewe which is intituled against idolatrie not against Christian images as is manifestlie conuinced out of an other worke of his De Pudicitia in which he maketh expresse mention of the picture of Christ himselfe grauen in the chalices of his time which he also mētioneth as a thing frequentlie practized so that vnlesse Sir Humfrey will say that Tertullian plainelie contradicted himselfe he cannot possiblie be imagined to haue spoaken against the images of Christ and his saincts but onelie against such as the Gentils in his time or the Iewes made in time of the old Testament contrary to the lawe of God as being representations of false and fained gods and godisses as is owne wordes in his booke aboue cited plainelie testifie where thus he discourseth against the Christian makers of Idols Potes vnum Deum praedicare qui rantos efficis Canest thou preach one God who makest so manie Tot a die ad hanc partem zelus fidei perorabit ingemens Christianum ab idolis in Ecclesiam venire de aduersaria officina in domum Dei The zeale of faith will plead all the day long on this side lamenting a Christian to come from idols into the Church from the aduerse officine in to the house of God And a little after to reach those handes to the bodie of our Lord which giue bodies to deuils Eas manus admouere corpori Domini quae daemonijs corpora conferūt The same I say of Origē cited out of Cassāder by Sir Hūfrey whome they both abuse in that they vse his testimonie against the veneration of images in the primatiue Church For I haue diligently read his 7. booke cited by thē wher I finde him to speake much against idols but nothing against Christian images his wordes are these Illarum enim gentium nemo ab his alienus est quod vereatur numen ob viles has ceremonias detrahere quae versantur circa aras materias effigiatas varijs imaginibus nec quod intelligat daemonas inhaerere certis locis statuis siue incantatos quibusdam magicis carminibus siue alios incubantes locis semel praeoccupatis vbi lurconum more se oblectant victimarum nidoribus voluptatem captantes nefariam vetitā diuinis atque naturae legibus Caeterum Christiani homines Iudaei sibi temperant abhis propter illud legis Dominum Deum tuum timebis ipsi soli seruices Et propterillud non erunt tibi dij alienipraeter me non facies tibi simulachrum nec vllam effigiem c. Non adorabis ea neque seruies illis Aliaque multa his similia quae adeo nos prohibent ab aris simulachris vt etiam emori iubeant citiùs quam cotaminemus nostrā de Deo fidem talibus impietatibus Et postea Liquet enim haec dedicari ab hominibus falsam de Deo opinionem habentibus For none of those nationes is free from these things because they feare to dishonore the diuine power in respect of thes vile ceremonies which are vsed before the altars and tables carued with diuers images For that they neyther vnderstand that deuils inhabit in certaine places and statues either inchaunted by certaine magicall verses or others lying in places once preoccupated where they delite themselues life gulliguts with the sauore of the sacrifices taking nefarious delyte prohibited both by diuine lawes and the lawes of nature But Christians and Iewes temper themselues from these for that of the lawe Thou shalt feare thy lord God and shalt serue him alone And for that Thou shalt not haue strange Gods besides mee And. Thou shalt not make to thy selfe anie semblance or anielikenes c. Thou shalt not adore them nor serue thē them and manie o her things like to these which so debarre vs from altars likenesses that they commaunde vs sooner to dye them to contaminate our faith of God with such impieties And afterwardes he addes It is cleare that these things are dedicated by men which haue a false opinion of God c. Thus origen aboute the end By whose owne wordes the reader may euidentlie perceiue he discourseth onelie against the images and altars of false Gods Which authors wordes I did therefore so largely relate that he himselfe might demonstrate howe much he is abused both by Cassander and Sir Humfrey touching this matter And indeed I haue often times much wondered to see the great stupiditie of the sectaries in this point and especiallie the most learned sorte of them in they be either so sotishlie ignorant or so Iewishlie superstitious and blind that they are not able to distinguish betweene the honour which Christians giue to the picture of Christ true God and man and the worship which the Gentils giue to the images of their imaginarie and counterfeit Gods Not ceasing either in their sermons or ordinarie discourses to compare most grosselie the one with the other and to pronounce sentence of idolatrie against them both a like and applying most absurdelie vnto the condemnation of the reuerence which the Romanists vsuallie practise towardes the foresaid images of Christ and his saincts those same sentences of scripture and Fathers which by them were onelie spoken against the pernicious errour of the Pagans whereas in truth there is as much distance betwixt the one and the other as there is betwene Heauen and earth God and the deuill Christ and Belial the person represented by the picture of Christ being both capable and worthie of honour but the persons represented by the images
of the false gods being neither capable nor worthie of worship as being either wicked men or plaine deuills And moreouer the honour exhibited to the picture of Christ being not giuen to the picture for the picture or by the picture itselfe I meane nor without relation to the Prototipe nor yet in the picture permanentlie but rather to the Prototipe in and by meanes of the picture or by the picture transitorilie not much vnlike to an arowe or darte which altho' it passeth by the ayre and in the ayre yet doth it not stay there but in the marke onelie whereas one the contrarie the Gentils went grosselie to worke for the honour which they gaue to the statues and figures of their Gods the same they gaue to the images themselues by themselues and for them selues attributing diuinitie or at the least diuine operations vnto them and adoring them with actions of honour proper to the true God alone as sacrifices and the like all which is so farre different not onely from the practice but also from the cogitations of anie Christian man that it can be esteemed no lesse then most grosse ignorance in the reformers to bring it in question And altho' it is true that the leight of nature onely is not sufficient to establish the honour of images which the Councell of Trent decreed as the knight doth captiously inferre out of the wordes of a moderne diuine whom he citeth neuerthelesse the leight of nature doth sufficiently teach vs the difference betweene true and idolatrous worship of images and doth also plainely dictate vnto vs that those are both ignorantly blinde who are not able to conceiue it and temerarious and rash who not being able to conceiue it condemne it as contrary to the lawe of God our as sectarie commōly doe And thus much for the answere to the testimonie of Tertullian and to shewe that antiquity is neither for the reformers nor against the Romanists in this matter as the knight doeth vanely indeuour to prooue but expressely for them in regard that as I haue shewed out of the same authour euen in those most pure and primatiue times ther was vse of the picture of Christ yea and of a grauen image which is that the reformers most directly impugne and exclaime against and that euen in the chalices where of necessitie it must needs haue beene honoured the same authour further affirming that the foresaid image was much vsed in his time being the second hundreth yeare after Christ our Sauiour when idolatrie was not yet extinguished which is an argument cōuincing that it was not a thing then first inuented but long before established nor offensiue to the most sincere and intire Christians of those prime ages as nowe it is to the Nyce nouelists of our dayes many of which are so superstitiously precise that as an honest Protestant writer affirmeth Sir Th. Ouerb Caract of a Precis they had rather see Antichrist then the picture of Christ in the Church Windoe And now let this suffice for a breefe Scantlin of the antiquitie of the reuerent vse of images to omit others as S. Augustin who in his booke of the Trinity calleth images religious signes Lib. 3. cap. Greg. l. 7. epist 53. And S. Gregory who speaketh of prostration before thē which is one of the greatest actions of honour that the Romanists vse to exhibit towarde any image So that by this the reader may plainely see the Romanists want neither antiquity nor vniuersalitie for their doctrine in this point as contrariwise the misreformers want them both for their pure negation of the same And if they demaunde scriptures of vs besides that which I alledged before we may truely answere them as a graue diuine in the seuenth Synod answered the heretikes of that time If they aske vs saith he in what place of scripture we read that the picture of Christ is to be honoured we answere that there where we read that Christ himselfe is to be honoured And if nowe the reformers demaunde of vs what reason we haue for the honour of the images of Christ and his Saincts we may answer them that we haue the same reason that they haue to honore the image of their King or his dearest fauorits For as in ciuill honour to respect or honore the Kings picture doth not diminish the honour due vnto the King himselfe but increaseth it so it passeth in the worship of the image of Christ and if the Puritans deny this there we leaue them as guiltie of treason against God and man And now here before I conclude I must of necessitie aduertice the reader of such abuses as Sir Humfrey hath committed in his citations of some of the authours he produceth in this place Wherefore in the first place I put the two councells he alledgeth as being as I suppose of greatest authoritie in our aduersaries conceipte The one is the Councell of Francford which because it is corruptedlie rehearsed by Chemintius we may iustelie disclame from it if ther were no other reason Yet Sir Humfrey knowes besides this that the Romanists hould that councell for illegitimate As for the Councell of Eliberis it is not absolutelie reiected by Romanists yet they knowe it was but Prouinciall consisting of 19. Bishops which whatsoeuer they defined in this matter which as yet is vncertaine yet could it not be anie Generall doctrine or practise for the vniuersall Church but at the most for their owne whole Countrye as the circunstances of that time and place required But of what authoritie soeuer they were neither of those two councels condemned the adoration of images as it is vnderstanded and vsed in the Roman Church for vnlawfull and much lesse for wicked and blasphemous as the knight here contendes but if they truely condemned anie worship of images it was onelie diuine not honorarie worship they condemned and so they neither of them preiudicate the antiquitie and vniuersalitie of the Roman doctrine in this point and much lesse doe they establish the antiquitie or vniuersalitie of the misreformed Churches which for the most parte will not suffer anie images either painted or vnpainted to appeare in their sinagoge either vpon walles or windowes And yet besides this it is well knowne the Councell of Nyce as consisting both of Latin and Grecian Fathers was much more generall then either the Francfordian or Eliberitan Sinod and in the Nycene it is certaine that the honor of Images was defended and established as our aduersarie not vnwillinglie confesse and the decrees of it plainelie testifie wher as in the other two it remaines doubtfull and ambiguous euen till this day what was truely deliuered in them touching this point ther being onelie some certaine fragments of them extant touching this matter out of all which incertaintie it is plaine that no assured antiquitie or vniuersalitie can be extracted for Sir Humfreys cause In the citation of Clemang is he takes onely that which seemed most for his
saying that he seeth not how the foresaid authours can be excused from errour in that particular for that the Cardinall onelie condemneth them in that which the reformers themselues according to reason sounde doctrine ought to condemne also that in no question of Controuersie betweene vs them nor which can iustelie preiudice the foresayd Fathers authoritie in other matters especially in which they all agree Lastelie sayth Sir Humfrey we produce the vniforme consent of Fathers against the immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin To which Salmeron the Iesuit quoth hee ansereth that weake is the place which is drawne from authoritie But first I aske of Sir Humfrey what he his consorts haue to doe with the immaculate Conception For that is no Controuersie of faith betwixt the Romanists them it is a question among some Romanists them selues lawfull for either side to make the best vse they can of the testimonies of Fathers either by imbrasing them or expounding thē in that particular point as they finde them most aduantageous for the defence of their seuerall opiniōs so farre as the Church permits thē that without any disparishmēt to their authority in regarde their wordes are not so plaine but that they may seeme to admit diuers expositions in that particular And as for Salmerō he neither speaketh of the Fathers in generall when all or most of them consent in a matter of fayth nor yet when they plainelie agree in anie other point of doctrine but onely when they speake doubtfullie or obscurelie this I say vpon supposition the place of the foresaid authour is truelie cited which in regarde I haue taken the knight so often tardie in that Kynde of proceeding I may vnrashlie suspected And the truth is that hauing now viewed the place in the booke which is in the 51. Disputation of Salmeron vpon the 5. to the Romās I finde that he speakes not of the vniforme consent of Fathers or Doctors but onelie of a certaine great number of thē to which he opposeth an other as great as he supposeth yea greater therefore he addes Quare si authorum numero decertare velint meaning the opposers of the immaculate conception of the Virgen procul dubio absorbebuntur So that this author is abused iust as I did coniecture before I sa his booke And altho' I can not much commend Salmeron for anie great ingeniousnesse in his application of the shepards sentence yet sure I ame that if he applied it not verie aptelie you Sir Humfrey applie it much worse more absurdelie And thus hauing nowe examined all the particulars of this section hauing founde nothing which proueth the authours intent I will end my period yet noting by the way how vanelie Sir Humfrey concludeth his discourse affirming his reader to haue heard the proofe of the Romish witnesses in the behalfe of the Protestant doctrine made good by the testimonies of the Fathers themselues which notobstanding is all false meere delusion for that I haue made it clearelie appeare that neyther anie Romanist by him cited hath graunted that anie one of the Fathers doth teach anie point of Protestant doctrine nor yet that they speake in those places here cited of the cheefe points of doctrine in Controuersie but contrarilie it appeareth that they speake onelie either of other matters which little concerne the Catholike faith or at the least they speake in an other sense then the reformers pretend yea that which is more remarkable not with vniforme consent but rather fewe or at the most two or three in one matter in which manner of proceeding what argument soeuer may be deduced from them it is no more trulie to be iudged called the testimonie of the Fathers absolutelie then that may be called absolutely the testimony of the reformers in which neuerthelesse onelie some fewe of them yeald their testimonies yet that but in some particulars those no principall points of faith And as for this complaint which Sir Humfrey maketh so formallie of the elusion of the proofes recordes of the Fathers as also touching that which he in like manner frameth against the Roman Church for her prohibition or censure of bookes I wonder with what face he can reprehend that which he knoweth to be so much practized in his owne Church in which there cannot the least pamphlet or smalest volume come forth which if it doth but seeme to cōtradict anie parte or point of the English faith or anie other point of Puritanimse is not presentlie ceased vpon by a pack of Pursuiuants put to the tortor of the Consistoriall assemblie there to receiue sentence of condemnation by virtue of which it seldome scapeth the flames of Vulcan Of which in parte is witnesse Doctour Mountagues latelie published booke which by reason it sauored a little of some points of Romanisme by an expresse Apeale euen to Cesar himselfe could not be saued from the seuere censure of the Puritan sinagoge And particularlie touching the authoritie of ancient Fathers if it were a faulte in the Romanists to call in questiō some passages or sentences of some of their writings where they iustelie suspect them to haue ben corrupted by heretikes Surelie the sectaries of these tymes are much deeper plunged in this nature thē they are in regarde that vnder the breight colour of reformation they doe not onelie vse to reprehend particular passages but reiect whole bookes that not onelie of the most ancient Fathers as appeareth in the Hierarchie of sainct Denis but also whole bookes of the scriptures themselues as is manifest in the bookes of the Machabies others which they vtterlie renounce condemne for Apochripha not sparing the booke of wisdome it selfe such cruell patrons they are of ignorance and of want of diuine knowledge Nay now of late they are be come so precise in this their spirituall tyranie that in their last editions as I ame informed they haue quite banished the foresaid bookes of Machabies Tobie Iudith wisdome Ecclesiasticus out of their bible To omit other bookes of lesse moment which they haue eyther mangled or left quite out of their editions as in the Inquisitors Index may be seene So that nowe the reader may plainelie perceiue that Sir Humfrey his pure simmists are so farre from excuse for their importune complaint of the Romanists in this particular that we may iustelie compare them to those Phariseis who could sooner see a mote in their fellowes eye then a beame in their owne And so here I leaue them all to be censured for hypocrites by Christ himselfe passe to the next section THE XII PERIOD THIS Period shall containe an other accusation of the knight in which he chargeth the Romanists with the crime of razing the recordes of the reformers clipping their owne authours tongues by which sayth he they are conuinced of an ill cause cōscience But how falselie the Romanists be accused by Sir
Humfrey it plainelie appeares by the examen of witnesses which I will make presentlie and in the meane time let but the reader reflect vpon that which hath hitherto ben sayd he will easilie perceiue that Sir Hūfrey himselfe is conuinced not onelie of a bad cause an ill conscience but also of such grosse proceedings as is not able either to the partes or su credit of a Caualier But now to particulars His first charge is layde vpon the inquisitors for blotting out a certaine note made in the margen of the Bible of Robertus Stephanus vpon the 4. chapter of the deuter That God prohibiteth grauen images to be made But what razing of recordes is this Is a newe note made by some one moderne vnknowne authour not sutable to the true sense of the text in such an edition of the bible as cannot be of anie long standing to be accounted one of your recordes And if it be yours how came it into the Bible what doth it there hath not the Inquitor as much authoritie to put it out as some obscure brother of yours had to put it in the true meaning of the scripture neither in the place of that note nor anie other is that God did prohibit absolutelie all grauen images as one of the greatest diuines you haue doth ingenuouslie confesse Daniel Chamierus Panstrat l 21. de imag c. 8. n. 1. but onelie he did forbid them to be made to the end to adore them as Gods or at the least to adore them with danger of idolatrie and yet the foresayd wise annotation maketh the scripture to forbid all grauen images absolutelie Wherefore it s nothing but a false recorde ordayned to deceiue the reader by abusing the true sense of Gods worde so the Inquisitor when he branded it with a deleatur he did but execute iustice vpon a falsifier of the Kings letters which in him neither argueth bad cause nor ill conscience but sheweth both of them to be in the authour of the counterfet recorde which he foysted in to the sacred bible To omit that it being no note of anie Roman authour as it manifestlie sheweth it selfe not to be yet the knight leap'd quite out of the quire when he cited it for a record of his owne except he supposeth al the writings of the pretended reformed Doctors of what sect soeuer they be to be recordes for his Church against the Roman doctrine which is both most ridiculous in itselfe nor yet was anie such razing of the reformers recordes euer intended eyther by the Inquisitors or by anie other censurer of bookes in the Church of Rome His second charge is aboute a certaine glosse vpon Gratian which glosse affirmeth according to Sir Humfreyes relation that the Preist cannot say significatiuelie of the bread this is my bodie without telling a lye This glosse saith hee is condemned by the inquisitor to be blotted out It is true the Inquisitor did so but what then did he therefore doe it wit an ill conscience I denie the consequence And in your conscience Sir Humfrey is it not an idle glosse indeed Doe not your ministers themselues when they deliuer the communion call it the bodie blood of Christ And if the Preist lyeth when he sayth so not of the bread as the false glosse sayth if so it saith but of that which is contained vnder the forme of bread surelie your ministers tell a farre greater lye when they say significatiuelie of the bare bread that it is the bodie of Christ truelie reallie as Master Caluin affirmeth Instit l. 4. cap. 17. And so I conclude this point that Sir Humfrey had no reason at all to accuse the Inquisitor of an ill conscience in razing onelie such a recorde as is no lesse repugnant to the doctrine of the reformed Churches then to the Roman faith if anie matter of faith it were which indeed it is not so by consequence it is also impertinent to the matter here in question Thirdlie Sir Humfrey chargeth the Inquisitor for blotting out Cassanders whole tract of the Cōmunion in both kynds But what worse conscience sheweth the Inquisitor in this fact then the Inquisitors of the reformed Churches doe who are not content with a simple doleatur but daylie condemne whole Catholike volumes to the vnmercifull Vulcan And as for the recordes which you take out of Cassander we make no more accounte of them then we doe of those which you take out of Luther or Caluin so you may take them make your selfe merrie Fourthlie Caietans opinion that the wordes this is my bodie doe not sufficientlie proue transubstantiation is no recorde for you as you falselie suppose for he doth not denie transsubstantiation as you doe but expresselie defended it as his owne wordes declare which I afterwardes recitie nay he doth not affirme absolutelle as suarez wordes quoted by your selfe in your owne margent expressely declare that the foresaid wordes doe not sufficientlie proue transsubstantiation as you corruptedlie relate but onelie sayth at the most that secluding the Churches authoritie they doe not proue it which not as contrarie to faith but as a singular extrauagant opinion of that authour Pope Pius did if perhaps he did piouslie blot it out not preciselie because it fauoreth the reformers as in trueth it doth not to anie purpose but because it sm'at disfauored the truth which is that transsubstantiation is indeed plainelie enough contayned in those wordes of Christ this is my bodie Howbeit I must needs aduertice the reader that I neyther finde those wordes supposed to be Caietans blotted in anie Index that I haue seene nor yet can I finde them in anie edition of Caietan in the place cited by Suarez that is vpon the 75. q. art 1. But onelie these Conuersio non habetur explicite in Euangelio these Quod Euangelium non explicauit expresse ab Ecclesia accepimus Nay more then this I finde other wordes in the same place which conuince that Caietan held transsubstantiation to be sufficientlie contained in those wordes this is my bodie for so he argues Sacramenta nouae legis efficiunt quod significant ac per hoc verba Christi hoc est corpus meum quia efficiunt vtramque nouitatem scilicet conuersionis continentiae vt expresse dicta sacri Concilij authoritas testatur consequens est vt cadem Christi verba significent vtramque nouitatem Wherefore supposing Caietan said not that the wordes this is my bodie conteine not sufficientlie transsubstantiation but onelie not expresselie I cannot conceiue what foundation Suarez might haue for this his relation except peraduenture Pius quintus founde that edition alone of Caietan to haue ben corrupted by heretikes therefore caused it to be corrected in that passage as indeed an other place of the same Caietan 2. 2. q. 122. is discouered by the authors of the prohibitiue Index to haue ben in that same fashion fraudulentlie depraued as the same Index expresselie
testifies in these wordes quoted in the margen In Thomae Caietani commentarijs in D. Tho. 2. 2. q. 122 art 4. omnino corrigantur errores qui fraude haereticorum irrepserunt vt notatur in expurg Index lib. prohib p. 89. Geneu impres The Epistle of Walricus is suppositious which is paoued to be so because it is superscribed to Pope Nicolas to whom according to the computation of times the first Pope Nicolas was before Walricus was borne and the second Nicolas was not borne till after he was dead Neither is it any way probable that such a holie Bishop as Walricus was should commend marriage in other Preists who liued and dyed in vnmarried chastity himselfe and so the foresayd Epistle being a false record as containing an improbable yea a morally impossible relation it was iustely condemned with a deleatur To omit that if this Epistle wer authenticall the reformers would gaine nothing by the bargen for that it teacheth expressely that the Roman Bishop is head of the Church and that Preists at the least after ordination cannot lawfully marrie Sixtly it is false that Bertram's whole booke is condemned as may appeare by the iudgement of the Vniuersitie of Doway approued by the Censurers of bookes inserted in the Index of Quiroya published by Ioannes Pappus a reformed deformed diuine with certaine odious prefaces of his owne coyning printed at Argentin 1609. In the 17. page of which Index it is manifest that the whole booke was not commaunded to be blotted out but onely some fewe things to be corrected or altered in the reading or to be expounded benigneously And as for the doctrine of transsubstantiation the foresaid Doctours of Doway expressely declare that Bertram often times in the first parte of his disputation teaches Catholike transsubstantiation plainely enuffe vsing the words conuertere mutare commutare permutare transponere creaturam in Christum in corpus Christi c. in so much that Illiricus compelled with the plainesse of those wordes confesseth there are in Bertram semina transsubstantiationis seeds of transubstantiation And also the same Dowacene Doctors conclude that those difficult places which are founde in him touching the reall presence which cheefely are two to wit that he seemeth to haue ben of opinion that Christs bodie is no more in the Eucharist then the bodie of the people and that that thing which is celebrated or done in the Church cānot be called God are either to be vnderstood of the externall formes of bread and wine or els that those sentences be inserted by heretiks who printed that booke first at Colen 1532. after at Basil 1550. 1555. so that this is no recorde of the reformers except it be vpon supposition of their owne corruptions or false glosses added vnto it but rather may serue for a pregnant testimonie against them and consequētly he that should haue blotted it out had done them no iniurie but a verie great fauor Seuenthlie I say to the sentence taken out of the booke of baptizme vnder the name of Anselme that manie passages be blotted out by the Censurers of bookes by reason they are such as may easilie be taken in an erroneous sense so scandalize or giue occasion of errour either to the simple or malicious reader which neuerthelesse in a sounde sense containe no false doctrine so might be lefte vncorrected if it were not for the corruption malignitie of the tyme. And of this nature be the wordes of the booke of the visitation of the sicke Baptisme if they be ritely recited by Sir Hum. Doest thou beleeue that the Lord Iesus Christ dyed for our saluation that there is no meanes to be saued by owne merits Which sentence in a true meaning is no recorde of the reformers in a false meaning it is better blotted out thē lefte in And such diligence argueth no ill conscience but a motherlie care of the Church towardes here children 8. We haue sayd sufficient alreadie touching the credit of Cassander whose doctrine the Romanists hould for false recordes either in parte or totalitie And he maketh such preposterous glosses vpon the Ecclesiasticall himnes as the Index noteth in one place that all his whole scholium is repugnant to the same like a commentarie contrarie to the text Yet to giue the reader a taste What truelie this man was who is so farre in Sir Humfreys bookes I say that altho' we hold not Cassander for a Romanist as being in the Index of prohibited bookes for diuers singular positions neuerthelesse the knight cannot iustelie brag of him in regarde it is manifest by his workes which I haue seene read in parte that he expresselie defendes the Roman doctrine in most points of Cōtrouersie betwixt vs the Reformers as also because in a greater parte euen of the same places which Sir Hum. cites in his fauour he is not a little abused either corrupted or detorted by him cōtrarie to his meaning Howbeit in respect he professeth the parte of a Pacifer mediator betwixt vs he could not but leane some thing to their side yet is it so little that I perceiue by one of his writings that he had smale thankes for his paines from some of the faction therefore was most sharpelie handled by them accusing him of dissimulation imposture interruption of the course of the Gospell the like An infortunate man who by his great labours earnest endeuours to content both parties contended neither a iuste punishment due vnto such as destitute of true knowledge in diuinitie which he himselfe in parte confesseth in his generall Preface presume to treat of those sublime subiects sans a guide The Basilean edition of Polidor virgill printed in the yeare 1544. compared with other former the most ancient editions is founde to haue ben corrupted by the sectaries so no true recordes can be taken out of it for Sir Humfrey his confraternitie And such is that passage which the Inquisitours commanded to be blotted out which is this All most all ancient Fathers condemned images for feare of idolatrie This sentence as false foysted into the foresayd Basilian edition is iustelie cast out as none of the authours doctrine or at the least vehementlie suspected for none of his And touching the doctrine of honour of images it selfe it is cleare that he can aforde no recorde at all for the reformed diuinitie for that he expresselie relateth the vse of images in Churches deduceing it historicallie from the most primatiue tymes Langius or Langus is of no authoritie among the Romanists so he yealdes no recordes of credit And at the best he is but a pedanticall Annotator as I take it a Lutheran that is neither of Sir Humfreys religion nor of ours As for Ferus certaine it is that some of his editions haue ben founde to be mightilie corrupted particularlie that of Mogunce Which the knight citeth so the recordes drawne out of him are of
no authoritie But suppose Cephas did indeed not signifie the head yet what great recorde I praye can that be for Sir Humfreys Church And so whether Cephas signifie the head or the feet whether ridiculum est be in or out of the bookes it auayles him nothing but some smale matter to quarell aboute yet the truth is that the most authenticall edition of Anwerpe 1585. hath the same wordes which Sir Humfreyes cites out of the Roman print in such sorte as one may rather much more suspect those wordes it is ridiculous to be falselie added in the Moguntin edition then detracted in the others Finallie whether the wordes of the Councell of Laodicea be that wee ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells as Sir Humfrey will haue it also some Catholike copies haue or whether in steed of the worde Angells wee reade angles or corners as some other editions haue the matter is not great so the decree be reight vnderstood that is so that the sense bee this we ought not to leaue the Church of God inuocate Angells superstitiouslie as some did in those tymes For this being the true meaning of the Councell as it appeareth by the subsequent wordes which are those and make congregations of abominable idolatrie to the Angells it is more then plaine that no recorde can there be founde for the doctrine of the reformed Churches But onelie it serues Sir Humfrey to make a plausible florish to the simple reader to the end that by working vpon his weaknesse by falselie taxing his aduersaries hee may make his owne impostures saleable which otherwise would putrifie spoile for want of vtterance Lastelie for proofe of his accusation Sir Humfrey after all this sturre he hath made produceth onelie one witnesse that a false one and altho' for the greater credit of his cause he held it expedient to giue him the decree of a diuinitie reader professor Deane of Louaine yet hauing examined the matter I founde by better information then Sir Humfrey can haue that Boxhorne before his reuolte had onelie the place a certaine of obscure Deanrie which function altho' it be a place of some credit yet it is farre inferiour to the dignitie either of a Deane of a Capitall Church or of a publike professour of diuinitie in the vniuersitie of Louaine both in learning honour profit And yet this man as I receiued by authenticall relation of the Deane of S. Gudula Church in Brussels others after some extraordinary familiarity which out of his ouer amorous nature he vsed to a domestike maide seruant of his owne out of an vnsetlednesse of his lubrik mynde began at first to defend that it was not necessarie for the Preist to prononce the wordes of consecration orally but onelie to speake them mentallie afterwardes as nemo repente fit malus Boxorno once a pettie-master by degrees falling into plaine heresie founde oportunitie to passe into the land of libertie I meane into Holand with bag bagage I meane with his Sacrilegious spouse the sacred spoiles of his Church Where from the place of a fugitiue Pedant he is preferred to the dignitie of a new Euangelist is become a blostering trumpeter in the pulpits of the misreformed congregations And this is the onely man which Sir Humfrey could bring for a witnesse against the practice of the Roman Church in her manner of censuring bookes or correcting the same or approuing them according to the order decree of the Councell of Trent which collapsed Deane being so infamous in his life as by this which I haue specified and more which I could relate doth appeare and being also now a professed enimy and Apostata from his mother Church let the reader iudge whether in reason his testimony ought to be admitted against her and let him withall be pleased to consider that Sir Humfrey in lue of conuincing his aduersaries of ill conscience he hath by his owne bad proceeding in this section conuinced his owne to be the worst of all so is fallē in to the same pit he prepared for his enimies incidit in foueam quam fecit by forgeing of false recordes hath incurred a farre deeper dungeon of cēsure then hitherto he did in which he must remaine either till he hath payde a double fine or put in suretie for the amendment of his manners THE XIII PERIOD IN His fourteeneth section Sir Humfrey indeuoreth to conuince his aduersaries of the defence of a desperate cause by their blasphemous exceptions as he calleth them against the scriptures by which we see that as his booke increaseth in number of leaues so he increaseth in multiplication of his malicious and false accusations and these being the cardes he playeth with let vs examen his gaime He continueth confidently his allegation of his false Deane of Louaine for a witnesse against the Romanists whose worde notwithstanding ought not either in reason or according to the course of lawe to be admitted for recorde against those from whose religion he hath reuolted And so whereas he accuseth the Romā Church of poyson in religion tiranny in the common welth it is to be taken as proceeding from a poysonous minde which being once corrupted hateth the truth as much as an ill stomake loathes dainty meates As for the scriptures it is false slaunderous to affirme that the Romanists refuse to be tryed by them so they be taken together with the authoritie of the Church which the same scriptures commende as Saint Augustin speaketh against his aduersaries and in a true sense without which as one of the auncient Fathers saith verbum Dei male intellectum non est verbum Dei that is the worde of God ill vnderstanded is not the word of God Quamuis certum de scripturis non proferatur exēplum tamē earundem scripturarū à nobis tenetur veritas cum id facimus quod vniuersae placet Ecclesia quam ipsarum scripturarum commēdat authoritas Aug. lib. 1. cōtra Cres c. 33. And according to this not that sacred Bible which was in the Apostles till the dayes of Luther without alteration is as you calumniously affirme ranked by the Inquisitors inter libros prohibitos among the prohibited bookes but your execrated Bible I meane your execrable translations and annotations mutilations of the most holy Bible are those that are registred in the censure where whether it haue as you affirme I knowe not certainely but I am sure it deserueth the first place because as the Philosopher saith corruptio optimi pessima and so as your Bible-corruption is in the highest degree of badnesse so ought it in reason to be ranked in the highest station of such false wares as that Catalogue condemnes And of the censure of your owne abuses I graunt you may with shame enough to your selues be eye witnesses but if you meane you are eye witnesses of the censure of the true scriptures
that text which hath ben at the least since the tyme of S. Augustin commonlie vsed in the Church as appeareth by the Rhemes Testamēt which because it is founde to haue ben rightlie translated is not arraigned by the Pope but exposed to be read euen by the laitie at the least by licence aduise of their Confessors Further more in regarde of the foresayd corruptions manie other which for breuitie I omitted made by heretikes in the holie scriptures those moderne authours which Sir Humfrey citeth if they be trulie cited haue ben induced to vtter some such speeches concerning the same as if they be not trulie piouslie interpreted may giue occasion of offence to the reader for example when they affirme as he sayth the scriptures to be dead caracters a dead killing letter c. such phrases neuerthelesse as it manifestlie appeareth by the rest of their doctrine discourse in those places are not vsed by those authours with an intent in anie sorte to disgrace or diminish the dignitie of the true worde of God but onelie by those comparatiue speaches to declare how subiect the scriptures are to be corrupted detorted to the defence of heresies errours if they be considered preciselie as they are the externall written letter interpreted otherwise then by the authoritie of the visible Church in all ages the ancient Councells Fathers they haue ben vhderstood Wherefore those Romanists which the knight citeth as if they had spoken irreuerentlie blasphemonlie of the holie scriptures doe no more iniurie vnto them then S. Paule did when 2. Cor. 3. he sayth of them litera occidit the letter killeth Lib. de Synodis or then did S. Hilarie when he teacheth that manie heresies haue their origin from scriptures ill vnderstood or then Martin Luther who called the Bible liber haereticorum the booke of heretikes None of which speeches as I suppose Sir Humfrey will dare to condemne either of blasphemie or irreuerence nay if he haue his senses aboute him he will easilie perceiue that those other such like phrases are not meant actiuelie of the worde of God but onelie passiuelie that is that throu ' the malice of the false interpreter it is so irreuerentlie detorted abused as if indeed it were as flexible as a nose of waxe And according to this we see that none of that which our aduersarie produceth here out of the Romanists is anie argument of irreuerence against the trueth inuiolabilitie of Gods worde but a calumnious accusatiō quite contrarie to the sense meaning of the foresaid authours who had not anie intention to taxe the scriptures but the corrupters false interpreters of them such as you pseudoreformers are your selues And now altho' by this which I haue sayd in generall touching this point of blasphemie against scripture supposed to be perpetrated by the Romanists the authors by the knight cyted remaine sufficientlie cleared from the imputation which he layes vpon them in that nature neuerthelesse because by the particular examen of the places cyted I haue discouered that either all or most of their wordes be either corruptedlie rehearsed or their sense detorted abused therefore I will seuerallie repeate their passages declare in what respects our aduersarie hath deceitfullie traduced them And to begin with Lindanus his stromata in deed I could not haue but I haue read the place cited out of his Panoplia where I finde that when he names the scripture a dead killing letter he onelie alludes to the wordes of S. Paule 2. Cor 3. for the letter killeth but the spirit giue liues Sicut illud eiusdē authoris dogma in mortuas imo ceidentes adeo literas relatum Panop lib. 1. c. 44. Neither speaking nor meaning worse of the same scripture then the Apostle himselfe affirming at the most that the bare letter of the worde of God ill interpreted doth kill the soule but reight expounded according to the tradition of the Church it doth reuiue nourish it brings it to eternall lyfe yea hauing better pondered his wordes in the end of the chapter quoted by Sir Humfrey I perceiue the doth not absolutelie call the scriptures a dead killing letter but onelie that the doctrine of that author meaning the holie Ghost as I conceiue is put in to dead killing letters As his wordes quoted in Latin in the margen declare And in this same sense I may iustelie truelie suppose the same authour speakes in the place quoted out of his other worke if any such saying he hath in regarde that a graue learned man as he is knowne to haue ben is euer iudged to be sutable to himselfe in all times places Which learned diuine is yet further cōuinced neuer to haue spoakē otherwise then reuerentlie of the scriptures in that in euerie seueral place cited by our aduersarie he stileth them sacrae litterae sacred letters And in like manner I conceiue of Charon who as being of the same faith religion he neither did nor dared to speake otherwise then with the same due respect which the Romā Church commaundes the Romanists to vse towardes the holie written worde of God Canus in his 3. chapter of his second booke is abused by the knight Nec esse eas volunt cereum quendā nasum in sensum omnem flexibiles sed potius esse per se expositas in promptu cuique sine magistro docente patere Canus lib. 3. ca. 7. f. 176 edit Louan by his imposing vpon the Romanists that which Canus speakes of the Lutherans saying that they will not haue the scriptures to be like a nose of waxe subiect to diuers senses but rather plaine for euerie one to vnderstand without a master or teacher thus the preposterous kniht doth positiuelie affirmatiuelie impute that to the Romanists which Canus onely relates to be negatiuely asserted of the scriptures by the Lutherans Turrianus agregiously abused in that he is accused to call the scriptures a Delphick sword the riddles of Sphinx and the like for he doth not absolutely say they are such but onely saith that if Christ had left in his Church that rule onely which the pretended reformers receiued from Luther to wit that scriptures are easie to be interpreted and vnderstanded and according as they haue hitherto expounded them in their owne sense then saith Turrian what els should we haue of them then a Delphick sworde In which wordes you see he doth not affirme absolutely that the scriptures are such a sworde but onely that according as the sectories handle them in their false manner of expounding they may be so compared and for this cause he puts for his marginall note how to interpret scriptures according to ones owne proper sense is as to haue a Delphick sworde so by this the authors wordes which I quote in the margen in Latin his meaning is sufficiently declared together with
vniuersall Church of the worlde proposeth vnto them as doctrine to be receiued beleeued or practized by all faithfull Christians And as S. Augustin in the 41. of his fiftie homilies saith Whosoeuer is separated frome the Catholique Church that is to say that Church which spred in ouer the whole worlde as he specifieth in the precedent wordes how laudably soeuer he thinkes he liueth for that onely sinne that he is diuided from the vnity of Christ he shall not obteine life eternall but the wrath of God remaineth vpon him In which wordes as the reader may see according to the sentence of S. Augustin separation from the obedience of the vniuersall Church is sufficient to bring the curse vpon anie man notobstanding in other respects he liueth neuer so virtuously And according to this the Romanists may bouldly say they are accursed whoe deny all merit in workes proceeding from the grace of God Scr. 68. in Cant. they blessed with Sainct Bernard whom Caluin himselfe calleth a holye pious man that affirme with him that it is a pernicious prouertie to want merits yet especially at the houre of their death for humilitie with the same S. Bernard put all their confidence in the mercy of God that which the Romanists doe much more then the reformers notobstanding their defence of meritorious workes They are accursed whoe otherwise then Christ tought or affirmed teach affirme it vnlawfull for the laitye to communicate in one kynde And they blessed whoe with Christ his Church take it for a thing indifferent of it selfe to receiue in one or both kyndes stand to the ordināce of the most vniuersall Church without contention according to the difference of times places persons They are accursed whoe being vnlearned read scriptures interpret them falsely for the maintenance of their errours according to that of S. Peter saying Epist 2. c. 3. ther are certaine places in S. Paules Epistles which the vnlearned depraue to their owne perdition but blessed are they whoe read them as the Eunuch did that is with a S. Philipe I meane with one to shewe them the true sense as S. Basil his brother Nazianzene did Lib. 11. cap. 9. whoe according to Rufinus read the scriptures following the sense of them not according to their owne presumption but according to the writinges of their predecessours notwithstanding they were both verie famous renowned in learning They are accursed whoe either prohibit mariage or meates as ill in them selues as some ancient heretikes did or absteine not frome them both at such times in such cases as God his Church ordaineth them to absteine And they are blessed whoe according to the order of the Church directed by the spirit of God remaine with S. Paule vnmaried refaine from eating flesh at such times as the same Church appointeth Those are accursed for contemning of Christ in his Church whoe contrary to her appointmēt doe schismatically administer the publike seruice Sacraments in the vulgar tongue erroneously defending the same to be commaunded by the scriptures blessed are those whoe for reuerence to the holy scriptures conseruation of the dignity of the diuine offices other iust reasons hould it fitting to administer publike seruice Sacraments in a language most common to all nations to wit in the Latin tongue They are accursed whoe loue Christ his Saints so little as they accounte it idolatrie contrary to the scriptures to honore their images notobstāding ther is no place of scripture truly interpreted to be founde against them those are blessed according to the same scriptures whoe to shewe their exterordinarie affection to Christ duely reuerence both the images of him his blessed seruants They are accursed that refuse either to adore Christs bodie whersoeuer he affirmeth it to bee or account it idolatrie or superstition to honore the Saints who he him selfe saith he honoreth with a crowne of glorie blessed are they that performe his pleasure in both by adoring his pretious bodie blood in the sacrament by honoring his Saints in Heauen where he doth honour them as his seruants freinds Si quis mihi ministrauerit honorificabit eum Pater meus c. They are accursed who contrary to scripture reiect such ancient traditions as the most vniuersall Church approueth blessed are those who with due obedience obserue the same Accursed are they who reiect charitie frome the formall cause of iustification Maior autem horum est charitas 1. Cor. 13. which notobstanding according to the Apostle is greater then either hope or faith blessed are they who admit it in iustification as well as faith preferre it before faith with the same Apostle Accursed are they that by denying with the Iewes the bookes of the Machabies to be Canonicall scriptures denie Purgatory prayer for the soules departed blessed are they who with the Church S. Augustin hould the foresayd bookes for canonicall scripture say with him it is an vndoubted thing that prayer doth profit the dead Non dubiū est oration prodesse defunctis Aug. de cura pro mort c. 1. And in this māner if need were I could passe throu ' all the rest of the points of controuerted doctrine easily showe the curse to fall vpon the misreformed brothers for their obstinacie disobedience to God his Church Sir Humfrey would faine seeme to beare a charitable minde towardes the Romanists in regarde he saith he dares not pronounce damnation vpon their persons and yet he proclaimeth confidently opēly to the whole world that their doctrine is damnable to which it is necessarily consequent that all such as die obstinately in it are directly damned so if Sir Hūfrey proceeds cōsequenter to this his tenet he must necessity iudge the same of at the least in generall of those which dye in the foresaid obstinate manner with out inuincible ignorance end their liues in it But if this be that which he calls greater charitie them Romanists haue all the fauour he doth vs we thanke him not for it such charitie he may better reserue to himselfe his brothers who in my opiniō haue no more thē they can spare And if this be all the difference which can be foūde betwixt the proceeding of the Romanists the reformers in this particular then I say that notwithstanding Sir Humfrey much laboureth to make his reader beleeue that he his reformed brothers are more charitable thē the Romanists in iudging of the state of the soules of such as departe in each religion neuerthelesse it is manifest he quite faileth of his intent supposing that the Romanists doe not vse to iudge but rather suspend their iudgment of particular persons except they haue some speciall reasons prudently morally to persuade themselues that this or that partie died in actuall obstinacie defence of his erroneous faith otherwise
you in some points of faith so in like manner might we deduce a proofe of the greater saftie of our way from the certaintie of those points of faith in which you agree with vs all which is but nugatorie friuolous absurd in regarde that as a parte ad totum from a parte to the whole no lawfull deduction can be made so neyther can it be inferred that because one parte of the obiect of a mans faith is true therefore the whole obiect of is faith is true by reason that notobstanding one parte of the obiect be true yet there may be in the whole obiect or matter trueth falsitie mixed together of which we haue instāces both in diuine humane matters And more then this Sir Humfrey must giue vs licence to tell him that he was to forward in the proofe of his tenet For before he went aboute to proue his way to be safer then ours he ought first to haue conuinced his owne way to be a true perfect way not to haue giuen his reader a parte for the whole by a false Senecdoche or contrarie to the Grammer rules to obtrude vpon him a comparatiue without a positiue that is a safer way were no way is to be found at all or at the least no safe intyre way And yet more ouer it is to be obserued that besides those positiue points of doctrine in which he sayth that both partes agree there be also diuers negatiues which they quite distinguish one from an other which negatiues neuerthelesse are parte of the reformers faith as well as their positiue doctrine so in this parte of their Creed they stand single as well as we consequentlie if standing single as he auerreth or at the least supposeth doth hinder the safetie of our way the same effect it must of necessitie haue in theirs according to this ground of Sir Humfreys it is manifest that the reformers can neuer haue the safer way till we ioyne with them in euerie point thereof by that meanes to hinder their single standing which yet we assure our selues will neuer come to passe except God almightie reduce them to vs from whome they once departed as we greatlie desire daylie praye And according to this wee may breeflie ansere to all the rest of the instances which the knight produceth And so we Romanists confesse we stand with the reformers in the affirmation of heauen hell but we stand not with them in the deniall of Purgatorie limbus We stand with them in the affirmation of the merits and satisfactions of Iesus Christ But we stand not with them in the negation of the merits satisfactions of those that liue in the grace of God by the virtue of the same the cooperation of their owne free will performe good workes of charitie mercie iustice the like houlding for certaine with S. Augustin that he who created vs without vs will not saue vs without vs yet further assuring our selues that God doth not operate with bests men both in one manner We stand with them in the defence of Baptisme Eucharist so farre as they Orthodoxlie maintainte them but we stand not with them in the impugnation of the other fiue Sacraments We stand with them in that they affirme that the images of Christ his Saints are ornaments memorialls of the absent but we stand not with them in their denyall of due honour to be exhibited vnto them for the great loue reuerence we beare to Christ his Saints We stand with them in the defence of the diuine worship of God but we stand not with them in the denyall of intercessiue inuocation honour of his Saints We stand with them in that Christ is the prime mediator betwixt God man but we stand not with thē in their denyall of the secondarie mediators or intercessors which are his seruants frends We stand with them in that Christ is head Monarch of the whole Church triumphant militant but we stand not with them in their denyall of the visible Vicarious head the Pope or cheefe pastour of the visible Church in earth subordinate subiet to Christ in the gouernement of the same We will not refuse to stand with them in that they graunt that S. Peter had a Primacie of Order but we stand not with then in that they denie his Primacie of power Iurisdiction We stand with them in that they teach there are 22. bookes of Canonicall scripture but we stand not with them in the refusall of the booke of Tobie Iudith two first bookes of Machabees the booke of wisdome Esdras Baruch the Prophet We stand with thē in that they affirme the scripture is the rule of faith But we stand not with them in their denyall of diuine traditiōs not properly added to the scriptures but commended by them included in them in a general manner We stand with them in that they say there are twelue articles of the Creed But we stand not with them in their denyall of the rest of the doctrine defined in generall Councells as neither doe we ioyne with them in the defence of all the 39. Articles of the English faith or Creed And so now by these particulars the iudicious reader may euidentlie perceiue that by reason the Romanists agree with the knight onelie in some parte or partiall of his doctrine he could not possible proue by their confessions the greater safetie of his way as both in the title of this his last section also in the title of his whole booke he did propose Nay he is so farre from the proofe of this that he hath most apparentlie fayled in the proofe of the verie argument of his whole worke which to the end it may more plainelie appeare I will reduce to this Sylogisme That faith is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith which is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther But the faith now professed in the Church of England is proued by the confessions testimonies of the best learned Romanists to haue ben visible in all ages especiallie before the dayes of Luther Therefore the faith now professed in the Church of England is the safe way leading all Christians to the true ancient Catholike faith Now there being contained in the minor of this Sylogisme the whole argument purpose drift of Sir Humfreys whole booke yet neuerthelesse it hauing ben by mee in this my censure demonstrated not to haue ben proued and made good by anie argument by him produced all he produceth to that purpose being voyde of force as by the discussion of the particulars of euerie section the reader may easilie vnderstand it followeth by a necessarie sequele that his way can not be safe but is to be auoyded with most great care circumspection
aboute the yeare 996 neuerthelesse in two seuerall respects he proceedes most deceitefully and quite contrarie to common honestie and reason First for that he feigneth and prefixeth a title against the reall presence and transsubstantiation to the said homilie secondly because in his rehearsall of the tenor of the same he leueth our the relation of two most manifest and palpaple miracles for the proofe of both those points of the Catholique faith in it alledged by the author which craftie and vulpine trickes of Fox with which and manie others of like nature he farceth his huge volumes as it appeares seemed soe shamefull that his successor the late diuulger of the same homilie was ashamed to imitate him yea and not obstanding he was bounde vnder paine of losse of the labor of his translation and publication of that worke which otherwile he well considered would haue ben in vaine to taxe the said miracles of fiction as he did in a marginall note yet was he not soe impudent nor frontlesse as to raze thē quite out of the copie inexcusable deceipt in Fox And how be it I cā not denye but ther is a great difference belweene these twoe actions yet must they giue me licence to tell them that neither of them both is cleare of ill proceeding the one being guiltie of plaine imposture the other of plaine temeritie For supposing they would venture to make vse of the homilie for the aduantage of their denyall of the reall presence and transsubstantiation for all that they ought to haue taken it as they founde it for better or for worse not goe a boute to pick out what they finde for their purpose and cast a may the rest like such vnreasonable caterers as will needes buye flesh without bones And in deed those twoe bones that is those twoe most patēt cleare miracles by which both the reall presēce of the bodie bloud of Christ in the Eucharist ar manifestly demonstrated against the new doctrine of these our tymes were too harde for old Father Foxs teeth to chewe or for his stomake to disgeast therfore doubtlesse he left them out both in his saxon and English transsumpte But these sycophants as they deale with the scriptures them selues soe they deale with ancient authorities testimonies lib. de bono person c. 11. Suo quidem priuilegione dicam sacrilegio vtquod volunt accipiant quod nolunt reijciant as S. Augustin said of the Manichies Againe concerning the Epistles attributed to Alfric ther is yet more discorde among our aduersaries For the publisher of them and the homilie aboue mentioned in his preface vnto them affirmes ther were certaines lines rare zout of a booke extant in the librarie of worceter which lines saith he which contained the cheefe point of cōtrouersie that is as he supposeth against the reall presence and transsubstantiation were taken out of twoe Epistles of Alfric written by him as well in the Saxon tongue as in the latin But Doctor Iames and Sir Humfrey tell vs that the foresaid passage was razed in a latin Epistle manuscript of Bennitts Colledge in Cambrige yet there to be seene And wheras the author of the publication saith that the lines razed ar to be restored by twoe other Epistles of the same Alfric in latin extant in the librarie of Exceter contrarily D. Iames tolleth vs they ar to be restored not by anie latin copies but by certaine Saxon copies of the same Epistles which he affirmeth to haue ben in the publike librarie of Oxon when he writ his booke which was the yeare 1611. Besydes this the same Iames out of Fox saith the Epistle which he affirmes to haue ben thus mangled and torne was to wulfstan Archbishop of yorke and hath for title de consuetudine Monachorum wheras yet the foresaid publisher of Alfrics new founde writings intileth that Epistle of Alfric de consuetudine monachorum of the order or manner of monkes Egneshemensibus fratribus to the fryres or brothers of Egnesham Which iarres I confesse I am soe vnable to compose that I can not but vehemently suspect these mens reportes to be false and counterfet Especially considering that Iames affirmes the latin Epistle soe razed as they reporte to haue ben directed by Alfric to that wulstan whoe was Archbishop of yorke aboute the yeare 954. wher as yet the author of the pamphlet in which these writings ar contained in his prefate to the same saith that this Alfric to whome he attributes them was equall to Alfric Archbishop of Canterburie which he alsoe affirmes to haue ben in that seat six yeares before that wulstan to whome Alfric's Epistle was writen was Archbishop of yoke soe that the one reportes this Epistle to haue ben wriren to the first wulstan and the other to the second not obstanding all histories and Cathologues of Bishops among which is Godwins doe testifye soe long a space of tyme to haue passed betweixt their standings as it is from the yeare 955. and 1003. soe that these twoe relators drawe back warde and fore ward like twoe ill match asses More ouer the foresaid publisher will needs haue Alfric the supposed author the homilie and epistles to haue ben a distinct man from that Alfric whoe was Archbishop of Canterburie wheras neuershelesse Iohn Leland whoe professedly writ of the writers of England relating the seuerall workes of Alfric the Archbishop of Canterburie maketh noe mention of anie other writers of that name but of him onely neither doth he put anie epistle among his writings but onely one intituled de consuetudine Monachorum of the māner or custome of monkes which subiect how farre it disagreth frō the presence of Christs bodie in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation I leaue to the iudgement of the reader to consider In fine to conclude my whole discourse touching this matter I say first that if it were true as our aduersaries pretend that in the foresaid writings ther weere anie thing contained contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation yet haue I cōuinced by insoluable reasons that neither Alfric could be the author of them neither could anie such doctrine haue ben publikely maintained in the Church of England in or aboute his dayes But what soeuer doctrine was then published and tought in our countrie was canformable in all points with the doctrine and faith then professed in the Church of Rome with which the English Church and her Pastors had correspondence and subordination as I haue manifestly declared Secondly Althou I am not able to iudge determinately whoe might be author of those writings because I haue noe meanes to come to the view of them otherwise then in that patched and mangled manner in which they are published by our aduersaries neuerthelesse I persuade my selfe they were writ by some Romane catholique author soe that taken in their innocencie and prime puritie and piously interpreted they containe no vnsounde or erroneous doctrine but rather expresse testimonie and proofes of diuers points controuersed
betwixt the nouellists of these our tymes and catholike Romanists As appeareth in the mention they make of masse miracles the signe of the Crosse and other particulars which I haue noted in my censure Thirdly the iudicious reader may easily persuade him self that supposing these writings according to the relation of our aduersaries haue remained in publike places and libraries for the space of aboue 600. yeares if they had cōtained anie doctrine repugnāt to that faith of the Eucharist which I haue historically demonstrated aboue to haue ben professed in our countrie of England euer since and before that tyme it s more then morally euident they would haue receiued long a fore this tyme reprehension or censure according to their desert Finally Supposing it were true that the foresaid writings did in deed containe doctrine contrarie to the reall presence and transsubstantiation as they ar beleeued and defended by the professors of the Roman Religion wheras yet they doe not soe but onely exclude the carnal palpaple or Capharnaitical presence of Christ in the Eucharist and instruct the people in the inuisible presence of his bodie and bloude in the Sacrament in an obuius and easie māner yet in reasō ought not anie iudicious Catholique to alter his faith of the same for anie argument which can be drawne or deduced from such testimonie as is voyde of other credit then is to be giuen to aduersaries in fauor of their owne cause which is iust none at all especially they being no other then these whoe not onely in this particular but alsoe in other matters of controuersie haue vsed much partialitie deceipt as in an other place I haue demonstrated out of their seuerall workes And in particular the publisher of the same pamphlet in which the homilie Epistles of which I heare treate are contained besides diuers vntruthes which he vttereth as well touching the author and tyme of his writing as alsoe his titles and marginall notes and likewise in that he couningly and couseningly publisheth in the same volume a treatise of the ould and new testament in the name of Alfric as if it included a different canon of scripture to that which is now vsed in the Roman Church and agreeable to their now English Bible which is yet most apparently false for that as I remēber it putteth in the number and order of the Canonicall bookes Ecclesiasticus Sapience Tobie Iudith and the Machabeis which yet our aduersaries reiect for Apocryphal As alsoe in that more ouer the same Pampheter addeth a testimonie to shewe that in tymes past the lords prayer the creed and the ten commaundements were extant and vsed in the vulgar tongue a worke most impertinently performed by him and as it seemes onely or cheefely to enlarge the bulke and price of his pamphlet it being certaine that the Romanists neuer neither held that matter vnlawfull or at this present prohibit the vse of the vulgar language for the ten commaundements and priuate prayer of the common people but rather the contrarie as both their Catechismes and their daylie practise most plainely witnesse By all which particulars and the rest of this my aduertissement it is euidently apparent that the glorious which the nouellists of our countrie make by their publication of the homilie epistles and o writings in the name of Alfric be no other then certaine prestigious impostures to persuade the simple sorte of people by these false florishes that their denyall of the reall presence of the bodie and bloud of Christ in the Eucharist and transsubstantiation is not quite voyde of antiquitie but hath ben preached and professed in our countrie before the dayes of luther And now let this suffice to repulse this fictitious and deceitefull calumniation of our aduersaries touching these putatiue wrings of Alfric by the publication of which and the like counterfeit wares they pick simple peoples purses whoe take all for as true as gaspell that is put in print by anie of their owne brothers The second aduertissement I giue to the reader is that wheras the kinght page 205. of his fafe wais cites Agobard for a denyer of honor of image in his booke of that subiect Agobardus Episc Lugdun li. de pict imag I haue dilgently perused the same and finde that in deed this author speaketh more harshely of this matter then anie other catholique writer of these dayes how be it this was the age in which images had their greatest enimies Neuerthelesse it is most certaine this author onely confutes the exhibition of diuine honor and the like vnto images as is sacrifice or confidence in them or prayer vnto them reprehending the error of some particular persons whoe superstitiousely adored them for soe he discourseth a boute the end of his booke saying But none of the ancient Catholiques did euer thinke them to be worshiped or adored yet now the error by increase is become soe perspicuous that it is neare or like to the heresie of the Antropomorphits to adore figments and to put hope in them and that by reason of this error faith being remoued from the harte all our confidence be placed in visible things And a little after Soe alsoe if we see penned or fethered Angels painted the Apostles preaching martyres suffering torments we must not expect anie helpe from the pictures which we behould because they can neither doe good nor ill rightly therfore these are the wordes cited by the kinght to euacuate such superstition it was defined by orthodox Fathers that pictures should not be made in churches least that which si worshiped and adored be painted in the walles which wordes being not his owne but alledged out of a fragment of the Prouinciall councell of Eliberis in Spaine and hauing ioyned them imediately to his owne in which he onely treates of diuine honor as not due to images it is cleare and euident he intendes to proue nothing else by their authoritie then that which he there proposeth To omit that this passage of the Eliberitan coūcell was deliuered in a sense much different from this in which Agobardus construeth it as I haue conuinced in others places and occasions And that this author intendes to teache nothing else but onely that images must not be honored with worship due to God the seuerall testimonies which he largely produceth out of S. Augustin S. Hierome other ancient writers doe manifestly demonstrate not one of which can be taken if they be truely vnderstanded in anie other sense as clearely may appeare to the diligent reader of their wordes which expressely exclude onely honor of Sacrifice prayers directed vnto the images them selues or religion proper to God onely in the worship of saincts and their pictures and alsoe Agobardus him self vppō occasiō of the places which he citeth doth auerre plainely declaring that he graunteth some sorte of honor to images wher thus he exhorteth Let vs behould the picture as a picture destitute of life sense and reason let the eye
consecrationem fieri arbitrantur Ego vero consecrationem horum verborum operatione hoc facite in meam commemorationem fieri existimo Christus enim c. There be verie manie saith this author who think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes this my bodie materially pronounced Whence it is that I haue seene some whoe comeing to consecrate doe in a strange manner cast their breath with the foresaid wordes vpon the breade and wine as if in as much onely as they be naked wordes not considering anie thing else in them they did hould consecration to be performed by them But I think that consecration is made by virtue and operation of these wordes doe this in rembrance of mee For Ghrist c. By which wordes it clearely appeareth that Christophorus did not absolutely denye that preists doe consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie but he onely affirmeth that they haue not their consecratiue virtue or force included in their owne materiall sounde but receiue it from the precept of Christ contained in those other wordes of his Doe this in remembrance of mee That which I yet further conuince by o other wordes of the same author in this same Action wher thus he discourseth in confirmation of his position Nemo proinde existimet haec verba hoc est corpus meum technice materialiter prolata consecrationem efficere sed ipsius Sacerdotis orationem in qua haec ipsa recitantur mandati huius hoc facite virtute atque operatione irrogatam ac spirituali virtute roboratam Let noe man therfore think saith hee that these wordes this is my bodie artificially and materially pronounced doe make the consecration but the prayers of the preist in which these same wordes alsoe are recited proceeding from the virtute and operation of this precept doe this and strenthened by virtue of the same Thus Christophorus By which it is manifest he had noe intention to denye these wordes this is my bodie to be them by which preists doe consecrate since he expressely affirmes that they are included and rehearsed among those prayers benedictions and gratiarum actions by which according to his tenet they dayly consecrate But he onely in his owne priuate opinion houldes that as well those wordes this is my bodie as the rest of the prayers which the preists vse haue their virtue and efficient force of consecration not from their owne materiall sounde but from the precept of Christ doe this in remembrance of mee Which altho' as it hypothetically or totally soundes it is an extrauagant and singular placet or dictamen of his yet is it not repugnant to the Catholique Roman faith either in the point of the reall presence or transsubstantiation as may plainely appeare to anie iudicious reader But onely hath some affinitie with the tenet of the moderne Grecians in this particular whoe not obstanding constantly defende both the one and the other as I haue shewed in an other place by the doctrine of their late Patriarch in his responsion to the lutherans And now I hence inferre as a thing more directly for my purpose that the wordes which Sir Humfrey produceth against transsubstantiation out of a certaine treatise intuled de Correctione Theologiae Scholasticae are not truely the wordes of this author But that Treatise is falsely ascribed vnto him and forged in his name how soeuer our aduersaries make great estimation and vse of it That which I clearely demonstrate because it containeth doctrine repugnant to that which he him selfe teacheth in his owne vndoubded worke against the Sacramentaries For wheras according to the citation of the knight in his 108. page of his safe way in his Treatise inscribed de correct Theol. Schol. Christophorus hath these wordes Therfore it most certaine that Christ did not consecrate by those wordes this is my bodie neither ar they anie parte of consecratiō And yet in his Treatise against the Sacramentaries he directly affirmeth the contrarie saying thus Christus enim horum verborum hoc est corpus meum vi operatione consecrationem confecit panis natura in verum ipsius corpus sese mutante c. Which is in English Christ did consecrate by virtue and operation of the wordes this is my bodie the nature of the bread being changed or changeing it selfe in to his bodie c. Now it is plane that these wordes plainely contradict the other rehearsed by our aduersarie these directly and expressely affirming that Christ did consecrate by these wordes this is my bodie the other directely and expressely denying the same In soe much either we must of necessitie grante that the Archbishop plainely contradicted him selfe which is not to be admitted especially in a graue learned diuine as he was or else that the Treatise in which is soe expressely contained a denyall of that same which the same author affirmeth in his owne knowne acknowledged worke is not truely his but falsifyed and falsely published in his name and consequently what soeuer our aduersarie produceth out of it proueth nothing but is to be registred in the list of such other cōterfeit wares as he selleth to his reader for currēt in the rest of his worke And touching his Treatise against the sacramētaries some other of his workes althou ' they cōtaine some extrauagant positions and therfore were iustely condemned to be expurged by the authors of the Index yet because particularly in his booke against the denyers of the reall presence the author exprssely submitteth his doctrine to the censure of the Roman Church purposely placeing in the frontispice of his booke omnia sanctae Eccesiae Catholicae ac sanctae sedi Apostolicae Romanae iudicio submissa sancto therfore his authoritie can not anie way preiudice the Roman faith And now let this suffice to shewe the falsitie of this citation onely the reader must further suppose that if I had seene the Treatise it selfe I could haue cleared the matter more exactely But our aduersaries take an order for that keeping closse all such obscure workes and reseruing them for their owne pallates as great nouelties and most daintie dishes Some fewe more authors remaine vnexamined by reason I could not haue them as Cardinal Carapha Ioānes Marius twoe or three others But I assure the reader the allegations drawne out of them by my aduersarie containe no matter of importance which is not sufficiently cleared without anie further searche of the places as they stand in the bookes Onely this inconuenience ther is in this matter viz. That if I had obtained a sight of the authors thē selues I should probably haue discouered some more of the alledgers ill proceding In respect of which and my other more triuial defectiuenes I will vse the same excuse which S. Augustin hath for a certaine worke of his concluding thus Si quid ab eis dici solet quod forte disputando non attigi tale esse arbitratus sum cui mea responsio necessaria non
fuisset siue quod tam leue esset vt a quolibet redargui facillime posset AN APPENDIX TO THE VVHETSTONE OR A COMPENDIOVS ANSER TO THE BY-WAY CHEEFLY consisting in a breife discouery of the authors indirect partiall false dealing with a detection of some particular examples of falsification BY THE SAME AVTHOR Sicut nouacula acuta fecisti dolum Psal 51. CATVAPOLI Apud viduam MARCI WYONIS Anno M.DC.XXXII THE INTRODVCTION TO THE APPENDIX BY that tyme I had in a manner finished my censure of knight Humfreyes nicnamed false way I receaued sodaine newes of another way eyther of the same author or of his frend for him which like a second parte of the Pickro came ruflling out with a greater noyse then the first the reason is as I suppose as well for that it carrieth a more extrauagant title to wit via deuia as also in regard it is some what larger both inleaues as I thinke in lyes Why the author should call his firste booke via tnta or the safe way this via deuia or the by way rather then the contrarie in my conceit few will be able to imagine anie other reason then his owne knightlie pleasure for my part I must needes confesse that his titles seuerallie applied to the contents are to me meere riddles as not conteyning eyther explicitlie or implicitlie that which they make showe of but rather standing onelie for cyphers or markes of the authors affected follie promising much but performing nothing as I haue made appeere in part by myne ansere to his first worke partlie also shall be showed by Gods assistance in this against which I now write of which altho' I doe not intend to make anie fotmall confutation in euerie particular point of doctrine as I did before more then once repenting my selfe that I spent so much time vpon such idle matter yet will I make a breife suruey of euery distinct section principallie noting notifieing to the reader such faultes as I shall finde the author guiltie of whome I also aduertise that notobstanding the knight with these his two bookes as it were with the deliuerie of two prodigious twinnes would seeme to haue brought forth some great strange noueltie to the world yet in veritie there is nothing of moment alleaged by him eyther in this or in his former treatie eyther out of scriptures Councells or Fathers which hath not binne long since examined confuted by a greater farre more learned number of Catholike diuines then all the pretensiue reformed Churches can affoord as apposers of the Roman doctrine And altho ' I doe ingenuouslie confesse that Sir Humfrey hath vsed no smale art industrie in the application of his predecessours labours to his owne intent purpose neuerthelesse he hath performed the same in such a cousening deceitfull manner that the reader may assure himselfe t' is almost one the same labour to discouer his lyes equiuocations false suppositions impertinent corrupted allegations other his insincere dealing to confute his doctrine it being little more then a masse or compound of those the like corrupted vitious ingredients nor contayning anie graue or solid discussion of anie one question in terminis or professedlie but onelie or cheiflie consisting in a certaine abstractiue way by compacting patches shreads of furtiue stollen diuinitie deliuered in a plausible persuasiue manner of which altho' I doe not denie but the author hath receiued great parte at the second hand from his antecessors especiallie from his great Patron Daniel Chamier who in the art of cheating doth in my opinion eyther exceed or at the least equalize anie that euer writ before him in regard of which altho ' the knight might seeme in some sort excusable at the least by ignorance yet hath he or his chaplins inuented added so much in that nature of his owne coyning that I doe not see what coulourable excuse can possiblie be alleaged for iustification of his bad proceedings And when reading of Bellarmines bookes of controuersies I found so manie vntruthes falsifications corruptions by him discouered out of Luther Caluin Beza Brentius Kemnitius other sectaries who had writ before him I imagined that at least for verie shame their successors as being such great professors of reformation would haue reformed themselues in that kinde but now of late since I came to read the workes of Daniel Chamier Sir Humfrey Lind I professe I haue quite lost my hope of their reclamation especiallie reflecting that as they are all men of one profession haue all of them an ill cause to maintaine so are they all fallen into a fatall necessitie of abusing their readers with trickes sleights the reason of which is plaine in regard that falsehood as being of a contrarie nature to truth it cannot possibly be defended patronized by the same truth but must of necessitie be defended by it selfe And as for Sir Humfrey he is so deepelie plundged in that muddie ditch that he his honour are like to lye there for euer his ill custome being now almost turned into nature as proper to him as blacke is to an Ethiopian or white to a swanne And to proceed to particulars he is so voyde of shame that he doubtes not to abuse Bellarmine in the very frōtispice of his booke where for posye or sentence of the same he putteth certaine words of his taken out of his first booke de verbo Dei cap. 2. intending by this indirect meanes to perswade his readers that the contents of his whole worke haue that famous Cardinall for their patron approuer which in my iudgmēt is a point of the greatest cousenage impudency that euer was heard of among Christian writers since that neither that which Bellarmines words import containe the whole or yet the cheife drife of Sir Humfreys booke neither are they vttered by him in that sense in which he doth apply them to wit that the scriptures are the sole rule of faith that there is no other rule but onely them wher as Bellarmin onely affirmeth that the scriptures are a most certaine a most safe rule in case they be rightly interpreted according to the ancient tradition of the Church Vid. li. 1. de verb. Dei c. 2. l. 3. de verb. Dei c 1. seq Scriptura regulacredendi certissima tutissimque est supra Lib 4. de verbo Dei cap. 12. that they are not to be neglected by imbracing the priuate spirit which is fallible vncerteine to be relyed vppon by none but such as neglect the certaintie or safe way of saluation in which sense meaning how the wordes of Bellarmine can possibly be applied to Sir Humfreys Deuia or by way let the indifferent reader iudge especially considering that he could not be inuincibly ignorant that the learned Cardinall in another place plainly declareth himselfe touching the totallity
partiallity of the rule of faith where yet nothing is to be found in that sense which the knight fraudulently framed to his owne purpose And now from hence I passe to the Epistle dedicatory on which I had scarce cast myne eyes when presently I discouered two or three slanderous lyes vttered by the author the firste is that the pretended Catholike Church as he phraseth her is made the whole rule of faith by the Romanists the second that the Romane Catholikes are tought to eate their God kill their King the third that the Pope at this day alloweth of the Iewes Talmud inhibiteth the bookes of Protestants And those vntruthes I haue noted onely not for that I could not haue marked out others but because they seemed the most obuious grosse palpable I omit also to specify diuers places of Bellarmine cited by Sir Humfrey both heere in many other partes of his worke which well examined can serue him for no other purpose thē to coulore his cousinage And as for the rest of his preface I can assure the reader it is little more then an idle tedious repetition of the same matters which he handled in his firste booke and whosoeuer will take the paines to read both his pamphlets will find so frequent rehersall of the same things that his eares will tingle to heere them nay some whole chapters of this booke there bee which excepting the title haue little other matter then the same which is found in the other as will appeere in particular to him who shall conferre the two last sections of it with the tenth eleuenth sections of the safe way In so much that I thinke I may not vnfitly say of the workes of Sir Humfrey that which a certaine pleasant wit sayd once of the writings of Luther Tolle contradictiones calumnias mendacia dicteria ac schommata scurillia in Catholicos Romanos inanes digressiones ambages atque inutiles verborum multiplicationes duo eius volumina in vnum haud magnum libellulum redigi posse non dubito that is take way Sir Humfreys contradictions calumniations lyes take away his scoffes ieastes against the Romane Catholikes his idle vaine digressions multiplication of wordes or repetition of matter with his friuolous circumlocutions I doe not doubt but both his volumes may be easily reduced to the bulke of one small pāphlet And thus much concerning the Preface the booke in generall from whence I passe to particulars THE DISCVSSION OF THE SEVERAL sections in their order Sec. 1. In his first section I thinke I may trulie say Sir Humfrey telleth but one vntruth but it is so lardge a lye that it reaches from end to end I meane but one totall lye for partiall lyes there are diuers This totall vntruth is in that he affirmeth in his second page that the difference betwixt vs them is such as was betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists which is manifestly conuinced to be false euen by those same words which he himself cites out of that holy doctor Aug. de vnit Eccl. cap. 2. who directly sayth that the question betweene him them was vbi sit Ecclesia where the Church is And yet the question is not betwixt the Romanists the Reformers where the true Church is but which is the true Church that is whether the Romane church all the rest of the particular Churches in the world adhering to obeying that Church as the cheife mother Church be that true Catholike Church mentioned in the Creed commended in the scriptures or the reformed Church or Churches wheresoeuer they be which the reader may plainly perceaue to be a farre different question from that of which S. Augustine speaketh in the place cited by the kinght Secondly the whole discourse of this section runneth vpon a false supposition to witt that the Romanists refuse to proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onelie as S. Augustine did saith the kinght against the donatists but this is not true for the Romanists are so farre for reprouing that course in this point that they scarce vse any other proofes then those same scriptures which the same S. Augustin ordinarily vseth for that purpose as may be seene in the workes of both ancient moderne diuines Thirdly neuertheles when the Romanists say they proue the truth of their Church by scriptures onely they doe not therfore meane so that they exclude the interpretation of them according to the ancient tradition of the same Catholike Church for so neither S. Augustine eyther against the Donatists or any other hereticks in the like case alleaged the scriptures but as the same Saint Augustine saith thou ' partly in different wordes to another purpose De vnit Eccles c. 19. vt non nisi verum sensum Catholicum teneamus not so but that we doe followe the true Catholike sense of the same scriptures And in fewe wordes that which the Romanists meane is that they doe not vse the scriptures for proofe of their Church in the sense of the pretensiue reformed Churches but ouerly in that sense which anciently hath binne imbraced by the most vniuersally floryshing Church in all or most ages according to the diuersity of tymes And thus we see cleerlie that Sir Humfrey in diuerse respects hath grosselie ignorantlie mistaken the state of the question both betwixt S. Augustine the Donatists also betwixt himselfe the Romanists And consequentlie those authorities which he produdeth eyther out of S. Augustine or other ancient Fathers are impertinent of no force against the faith of the Romane Church but on the contrarie by his false dealing he hath fallen into that by path which in his erroneous imagination he hath prepared for his aduersaries in which neuerthelesse he himselfe if he proceed in this manner is like to walke euen to the end of his iorney I meane throu ' all the sections of his booke Sec. 2. In his second section he pretends to ansere to the pretences as he termeth them taken by the Romanists from the obscuritie of scripture from the inconueniences which he saith his aduersaries alleage for the restraint of the lay peoples reading them yet he is so farre from performing his taske in this behalfe that he doth not so much as relate completelie those reasons which moue the Romā Church to ordayne the said restraint but onelie catching at one or two of the lesse important causes alleaged by Bellarmin to that purpose giuing a verie sleight superficiall ansere vnto them he spends a great part of his time in forging a new cause which he falselie conceiueth to haue binne the onelie or cheife motiue which the Roman Church had to prohibite the reading of the Bible to wit for feare as he sayth their Trent doctrine new articles should be discouered And also in breathing out an odious relation of the speaches of some particular
difficult questions nor yet could you haue so inconstantlie hallucinated as to affirme in one place that the text of scripture is the sole Iudge expounder of itselfe indefinitlie without liâ—itation yet on the contrarie in another place that you doe not denie the authoritie of the Fathers iointlie agreing in the exposition of them in matters of faith yet further that the same Fathers referred the meaning of the scriptures to the author of them as if the holie Ghost were bound to appeere visiblie to deliuer the true sense of them as often as anie controuersie of faith occurreth All which the like disparates the vertiginous knight vttereth within the compasse of this one section also further accusing the Romanists that they make themselues Iudges plaintiffes in their owne cause wheras indeed the Romanists neyther make themselues but the euer visible continueing Church Iudge of their cause nor doe they hould theÌ„selues for plaintiffes but for defendants faithfull possessors of that doctrine which as it were by inheritance they receiued from their auncestors And here I request the reader to reflect how disconformably the knight discourseth to his owne receiued Principle touching the interpretation sense of scriptures of which he his brothers make euerie priuate person man or woman Iudge vmpier yet condemnes for vnreasonable that the Roman Church should vse the like authoritie euen when it is publikelie assembled in a generall Councell So that these all those a foresaid particulars deliuered by our aduersarie touching this point are but onelie his owne fancyes of which he makes vse for want of better materialls to patch vp this part of his by path in which as you see he continueth his peripateticall exercise euen to the next section Sec. 4. In which it being the fourth in Order he prosecuteth the same matter telling his reader that the Romanists tho' they pretend otherwise yet they make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of scripture thus the knight fableth of whom I tknowe I may iustlie say with the Poet mutato nomine de te fabula narratur And in reallitie of whome I pray can this be so trulie verified as of those who notobstanding that vnder a false colour that euen in cases of doubt controuersie they ingenuouslie professe that scriptures must be interpreted by themselues onelie Vid. ChaÌ„ Panstrat I. de inten scrip yet neuerthelesse doe most pertinaciouslie maintaine that the exposition of them belongs to euerie member of their Church in particular that the spirit of interpretation is as common to one as to another for what is this but to make themselues sole Iudges interpreters of the scripture not the scripture itselfe as they deceitfullie pretend Let the indifferent reader be Iudge of this It is true the Councell of Trent doth decree that none expound the scriptures contrarie to the vniforme consent of Fathers yea Pius Quintus doth also declare in his Bull of the profession of faith that such as are preferred to dignities places of care of soules take an oath of the same but as they take the oath so doe they performe also the obligation of it And I demand of Sir Humfrey who hath such a great talent in reprehending whether he thinkes not in his conscience that those who vnder the strict boÌ„d of oath are obliged to anie matter are not more like to performe it then those who haue no such obligation whereby to restraine their actions surelie there is a great difference in the circumstances consequentlie a great reason to iudge that those Romanists who haue such an oath obliging them to followe the consent of Fathers in their interpretations of scripture will be farre more carefull to performe the same then the reformed Doctours who haue no such bridle to refraine the inclination to noueltie of their itching witts Now wheras Sir Humfrey after his ordinary cauilling manner doth say that if the Romane Church can make good the vniforme consent of Fathers for their twelue new articles of faith he will listen to their interpretation preferre it before any priuate or later exposition this I say is a meere sophisme in regard that the Roman Church doth not teach as he ignorantly mistakes that he who interpreteth scriptures must haue positiuely the vniforme consent of Fathers for his expositions but onely that he must not wittingly expound any place of scripture in matters of moment especially in faith manners contrary to the whole torrent of the same Fathers the which because the kinght did not rightly vnderstand as it seemes when he read the Concell the Bull of Pius he abuseth Caietane Canus Andradius Bellarmine Baronius other moderne Romanists as if they had contradicted the foresaid decree wheras yet one of them to wit Caietan writ before it was established the rest being knowne for notorius defenders of it so running vppon false grownes the wandering knight passeth forward citing among Romanists some of his consorts building his By-way to omitt others of lesse moment diuerse scurrilous scoffes touching the application of scriptures by the Romanists notobstanding it s well knowne he his companions are much more guilty in that kinde with two notorious vntruthes affirming that all the pristes Iesuites are sworne not to receaue interpret scriptures but according to the vniforme consent of Fathers that it is an article of the Roman faith so to doe all which needes no further examen in regard that to any iuditious reader these two particulars onely will be sufficient to acquaint him which the rest of the authors iugling trickes which he vseth in this part of his by-way which being voyde of substantiall matter it suteth best to him that made it but agreeth nothing to the Catholike RomaÌ„ faith â—ect 5. In the fifth section he handleth his Canon of scriptures which he promiseth to proue by pregnant testimonies of all ages that it is the same which learned Doctors professors intirely preserued in the besome of the Roman Church in all ages I haue treated of this in parte in my former Censure to which I adde returning that Sir Humfrey saith of Campion vppon himself which is that if this Nouellist had binne as reall in his proofes as he is prodigall in his promisses he had gome beyond all the reformed proselites sinces the daies of Luther for neuer man made greater florishes with proorer proofes all that he bringeth being founded vppon the same equiuocation which he vsed in his safe way consisting of this proposition the Fathers of euery age haue acknowledged the 22. bookes of scripture which the reformed Churches hold for Canonicall to be the true Canon no other For it is true the Fathers of all ages receiued from Christe his Apostles those same bookes acknowledging them for Canonicall but it is false that the same fathers in all ages held no other for Canonicall of which truth particular instance
may be made in S. Augustine who as Caluin confesseth being a faithfull witnesse of antiquity Lib. 18 de Ciuit. cap. â—6 Calu. li. 4. â—nst c. 14. Sac. testifieth touching the bookes of the Machabees that althou ' the Iewes receiue them not for Canonicall yet the Church doth receaue them And according to this it being true that few or none of the great multitude of writers which the kinght produceth in euery seuerall age doe positiuely affirme that those 22. bookes of scripture onely which the reformers vse were by the vniuersall Christian Catholike Church held to be the complete or intire Christian Canon of the ould testament or that those particular bookes now in controuersie betwixt vs them were expresly reiected eueÌ„ by the Iewes themselues as not Canonicall or not of infallible credit not rather held by them for sacred diuine althou not registred in their Canon which is the cheife part of Sir Humfreyes proposition it followeth cleerly that he quite faileth in his proofe that for all his braggs he onely steppeth out of his pretended safeway into the same by path he hath euer walked in since he firste began to write neuer omitting his occustomed sleightes in the allegation of authors concluding his section with that laregelye so often repeated by him in this other places as affirming that by his aduersaries owne confessions the true orthodox Church did reiect those Apocriphall bookes which his Church reiecteth the Trent Councell alloweth at this day for Canonicall out of which thrasonicall audacity of this boysterous Caualier the reader may easily take a scantling of the rest so come to know the fox by his tatterd tayle â—ec 6. In his sixt sex section he pretendeth to solue the Romanists arguments deduced froÌ„ authoritie of Fathers Councells for those bookes which the reformers hold for Apocriphall Touching which point althou ' it cannot be denyed but that doubt was made in former times among the fathers whether the foresayd bookes were Canonicall or not in which there was diuersitie of opinions especially before the Councell of Carthage neuerthelesse it is certaine that neither the whole Church in any Councell nor yet anie of the Doctors or fathers did positiuely at any time euer agree to exclude them out of the Christian Canon but as some of the fathers made doubt of the same so others made none at all among whome S. Augustine was so confident in that matter that in his 2. booke of Christian doctrine that not obiter but professedly treating of it he setteth downe the very same number names of the very same bookes which the Roman Church defendeth for Canonicall at this present day yet notobstanding this our aduersarie is so presumptuous voyde of shame that he doubtes not to affirme that Sainct Augustine did not allow the bookes of Iudith â—… 132. wisdome Ecclesiasticus the Machabees for Conanicall In iustification of which his impudent assertion it is wondrous to consider how the crafty Sicophant doth excercise his witts in framing euasions wherby to elude the plaine testimony of that renowned orthodox Doctor the decree of the Councell of Carthage in that particular to which the same S. Augustine subscribed eueÌ„ in this same point of the Canonicall scriptures reiected by the preteÌ„siue reformed Churches Howbeit all that Sir Humfrey could inuent for the infringeing of these two sound irrefragable authorities consists either wholely or cheeflie in equiuocations insincere dealing in the citing construeing of the authors he alleageth yea in vttering of diuers plaine vntruthes as where he saith of the third Councell of Carthage that it is not of that authority as the Romanists themselues pretend adding presently after for reasoÌ„ of his first lye another as great or greater against Bellarmine affirming that the Cardinall wheÌ„ the Protestants produce this Councell against the head of their Church answereth that this prouinciall Councell ought not to binde the Byshops of Rome nor the Byshops of other Prouinces citing him for this sayeing in his 2. booke de Rom. Pont. cap. 31. where neuerthelesse there are no such wordes to be found And finallie to omitt other of lesse noyse he affirmes that S. Augustine declares by pregnant seuerall reasons that the Machabees are Apocriphall yet he denyeth not euen in this very place but that the same S. Augustine both put them in the Canon of the scriptures in his second booke de doct Christ nor yet that he affirmed in his 18. booke de Ciuit. Dei cap. 36. that the Church hath them for Canonicall thou ' the Iewes hould them not for such By which it appeeres that Sir Humfrey touching this point of controuersie is not in the way of S. Augustine of the determination of the Church of Rome in his times but is with shame enuffe fallen againe into his owne by way where he his progenitors haue euer wandred since the daies of Luther Sect. 7. In the seuenth section he reprehendeth the proofe of Catholike doctrine by traditions makes such a trade of dealing vntruelie that one would thinke sure he liues by lyeing And now I verilie persuade my selfe it is most true which a certaine ingenious Protestant sayd of the Puritans that they will rather affoord ten lyes then one oath In his verie firste wordes he affirmes that to admit traditions other constitutions of the Church is the firste article of the Roman Creed to which all Bishops Preists are sworne citing in the margen the Bull of Pius the fourth this is his first lye in this section but he will make sure it shall not be his last for he incontinentlie addeth two or three more one in the neck of another affirming that those obseruations constitutions of the Church which Pope Pius mentioneth are declared by the Councell of Trent to be those traditions which the Church receiueth with equall reuerence religious affection for so the knight insincerelie translates the wordes pari pietatis affectu as she receaues the holie scriptures Ego firma fide credo omnia singula qua contineÌ„tur in symbolo fidei c. Bul Pij 4. sup form iur prof fid adding more that heere was the firste alteration made touching the rule of faith with diuers other falsities too large to recount And yet if when he read the foresayd Bull he had not for hast scipped ouer the whole Creed which the Pope placeth in the verie firste part of the profession of faith showeing euen by that vnfaithfull tricke how little faith he hath I thinke he would neuer haue had the face to calumniate in this manner And if to speake in commendation of diuine Apostolicall traditions in that forme of speach which the Councell vseth were to make alteration in the rule of faith as the knight will haue it yet is it apparentlie false that the Tridentine Councell was the firste author of that
Concedimus quod oramus Sanctos proprie ipsi orant pro nobis proprie vt cum dicimus sancte Petre ora pro nobis c. Wee graunt saith Antisiodore that wee praye to the saincts properly that they pray for vs properly as when we say Sainct Peter pray for vs. And now loe here how faithlessely the knight hath proceeded in his allegation of the testimonies of these twoe authors whoe both soe plainely conspire against him let the reader alsoe consider how little reason our aduersarie had to conclude that inuocation of saincts hath neither antiquitie vniuersalitie nor succession supposing that he can conclude no other safetie out of these and the like premisses then such as proceeds frome his owne forgerie deceite And altho' Gabriel cites an opinion of manie others that graunt the Saints doe praye onely improperly for vs by mediation of their merits yet doe they not exclude all prayer to saincts as Sir Humfrey the rest of his pretensiue reformed brothers doe whoe if they would but graunt the same the Roman Church would not soe much complaine of them neither is the difference of those Romanists frome others in the substance of this question in controuersie which is whether the saincts intercede praye for faithfull Christians liuing in this world whether we may praye vnto them inuocate them in both which partes of doctrine all Romanists agree but these diuines mentioned by Biel doe dissent from the rest onely aboute the maner of intercession which saints doe vse making a question whether they performe that charitable acte by formall prayer made vnto God for vs or by interposition of their merits by that meanes to moue his diuine maiestie to graunt our requests which manner of mediation as it is not the cheefe question betwixt our aduersarie of these tymes vs soe neither is it an argument of defect of antiquitie vniuersalitie or succession in the Roman doctrine nor anie proofe of the same notes to concurre in the tenets of the moderne sectaries as Sir Humfrey doth falsely suppose proueth not but onely equiuocateth in the state of the question or rather by affected ignorance transuersteth the meaning of the foresaid diuines touching this point taking the maner for the substance of the matter soe either throu ' affected ignorance or plaine malice diludes his reader To let passe that altho' the foresaid authors doe not graunte that the saints vse anie formall or proper forme of prayer to God for vs yet doe they not deuie our in vocation vnto them Nay supposing these diuines of whose doctrine the kinght would faine take hould as if it were contrarie to the vniuersalitie of the Roman faith supposing I say as Sir Humfrey him selfe relates out of Gabriel they defend the mediation of saints by their merits at the least if he had had is senses in readinesse he might easily haue either inferred that those same authors in like māner hould that we may inuocate pray vnto them euen peoperly formally or at the least it is plaine he neither ought nor could deduce the non inuocation of saints frome the foresaid mediation as erroneously he doth consequently he greatly abuseth the maintainers of that opinion in that he produceth them against the vniuersalitie antiquitie and continuall succession of the Roman doctrine in this particular seeing they differ not a iot frome other Catholique diuines in it touching the substance of faith yea they are soe farre from this that they expressely consent with them both in the doctrine of mediation merits both which points neuerthelesse the Nouellists doe obstinately impugne soe that it appeareth as a manifest trueth that Sir Humfrey can not possible with all his arte deuises scrape anie thing out of them for the antiquitie vniuersalitie succession of his pretensiue reformed congregation but rather that which doth quite destroye it if he had his dyes aboute him to perceiue it To the wordes cited by Sir Humfrey page 263. concerning images Biel subioyneth these Nec tamen propter haec imagines proijciendae sunt aut de oratorijs eliminandae occasione idololatriae deuitandae aut peregrinationes ad certas imagines vel certa loca praesertim consecrata vel etiam consecranda penitus reprehendenda non enim vsque quaque negandū est quin in certis locis singulariter reluceant beneficia maiora crebrius quam in alijs vel propter imagines sanctorum reliquias ibi conditas uel occulta ministeria alias mysteria futuris temporibus ibi celebranda aut celebrata vel alias causas nobis occultas propter quas Deus vnum locum elegit suo cultui non alium Thus much Biel in can missae sec 49. Which wordes neuerthelesse are slylie omitted by Fir Humfrey his freind Cassander which other wise are soe plaine for the Catholique practice in this matter euen at this day that they confounde them both And this is their false plot which they vsed to make this most Catholique author seeme to fauore their ill cause wheras in reallitie he is plainely against them Page 152. of the by-way Canus is cited by Sir Humfrey lib. 3. cap. 3. And falsely alledged as if he gaue a reason wherfore traditions are aboue scriptures For he onely affitmes that they are of greater force to conuince haeretikes then scriptures that which in substance was taught long since by ancient Tertullian is no blemish vnto the written worde of God which in other respects both the same Canus all other Romanists at the least equalize yea prefer before the vnwritten doctrine of the Church in generall In his citation of Canus page 399. of his by way Sir Humfrey puts the obiection as if it were the doctrine of the author whoe propoundeth ansereth the same in his last chapter of the first booke sharpely reprehending Pighius out of whose opinion the obiection is framed by Canus reproued Altho' he insinuates with all that the error of Pighius Is not in matter of faith doctrine necessatie to saluation which is that onely which Canus professeth to maintaine in the defense of the authoritie of Councels Nos enim in dogmate fidei deeretis ad salutem fidelium necessarijs Conciliorum authoritatem asserimus in rerum gestarum iudicio ordine non asserimus Canus de locis lib. 5. cap. vlt. ad sep argumentum When Costerus pag. 44. of his Enchir. prefers traditions before the word of God he takes tradition as it is writen in carnall tables of the harte by the finger of the holy spirit on the contrarie he takes the written worde of God precisely as it consists in letters caracters which may perish or be corrupted by the false construction of heretikes or otherwise And therfore Costerus calles the first internall the secōd externall scriptures in the margen of the same page 44. And when the same costerus citcd by Sir Humfrey page 149. of his Deuia in the
had an implicit faith of all those obiects which they nowe confesse them selues to beleeue according to that deductiue manner or else they had noe faith at all of them before they were deduced whence it farther followes that euer since they made their foresaid illations or consequences their faith is newe and quyte distinct from their owne faith in former tymes the absurditie of which most necessarie sequele I remit to the censure of the reasonable and iudicious learned reader to determine By occasion of this I desire the reader to take yet more cleare notice of the great peruersitie of the proposterous Nouellists who as they reueile their violēce in reprouing the foresaid receiued doctrine of implicit or inexpressed faith soe likewise they ar no lesse peremptorie in defending their owne newe distinction of fundamental and not fundamental points in Religion according to which their position they obstinately maintaine the Church can erre in matters of faith that is in such points of faith as in their conceite ar not foundamentall But against the falsitie of this distinction I argue first vpon their owne supposed principle to wit that nothing is to be beleeued in matters of faith which is not founde in scripture either explicitly and clearely or by cleare and certaine consequence wherfore this doctrinal distinctiō of theirs being a matter of faith and yet not founde in scripture in either of those two manners related plaine it is that according to the pretended reformers doctrine it neither deserues faith nor credit More ouer this distinction is soe newely coyned by our aduersaries and soe farre from hauing anie foundation either in scripture or ancient doctors that I neuer read anie mention of it in the first and cheefe establishers of the pretended reformatiō Onely Chamier who is in deed a violent defender of Caluinisme in his booke de natura Ecclesiae Cap. 13. num 11. seemes plainely to suppose the same distinction in substance affirming that the Catholique Church can erre licet non in fundamento salutis tho' not in the foundation of saluation Yet Chamier haueing writ his Panstratia but of late yeares either our English Nouellists receiued it from him or inuented it them selues not long before soe that the noueltie of it a lone were sufficient to conuince it of vntrueth and vanitie And altho' I might iustely take exceptions at the worde it selfe for the newnesse of it according to the Apostles counsel to Timomothie to auoyde profane nouelties of wordes in regarde the worde not fundamentals as it is applyed to matters of faith and thee errors of the Church ther in by our aduersaries it is a kynde of profanation both of diuine faith it selfe which is truely fundamental in al respects and also of the authoritie of the Church which likewise is infallible as much in one matter as an other Neuerthelesse my cheefe intention is not to insiste in the reproofe of wordes which I graunt may vpon occasion and for better declaration of a trueth be inuented and vsed by the Churches authoritie but I onely stande vpon the sense or obiect of them directely conuinceing the matter signifyed by those wordes not fundamental in faith to be repugnant both to scripture and Fathers That which I proue by a seconde argument of the same nature to wit because the scripture expressely teaches that 1. Tim. 3. Ecclesia est the Church is a pallar or firmament of truth And our Sauior promisseth his Father will giue to his Apostles and their successors an other Paraclete the spirit of trueth to remaine with them for euer Ioan. 14. Ioan. 16. which same diuine Spirit as he him selfe declares afterwardes in the 16. chapter will teache them all trueth which vniuersal terme all includes and signifyes both fundamental and not fundamental truethes and consequently it expressely excludeth this vaine distinction of the nouellists To which purpose S. Cyrill vpon the 10. chapter of the same Euangelist speakes most fittly and appositly saying that althou ' in this life we knowe onely in parte as S. Paule affirmes non manca tamen sed integra veritas in hac parua cognitione nobis refulsit yet not a meamed or imperfect but an intyre true faith shined vnto vs in this smale knowledge And the place now cited out of the first to Tim. 3. is by all interpreters of scripture both ancient and moderne expounded of the firmenes and stabilitie which the Church hath by the assistance of the holie Goste in her deliuerie of true doctrine to her particular members conformable to which sense Tertullian to omit the rest for breuitie in the 28. of his prescriptions hath a most fine sentence as it were in derision of those who teach the vniuersal or Catholique Churche can erre in matters of faith Could not saith hee the holie Goste haue respected her soe much as to haue induced her into all truth he hauing ben sent by Christ to this ende hauing ben requyred by his Father to be the Doctor of trueth should villicus Christi vicarius the stewarde the vicar of Christ haue neglected the office of God suffering the Churches in the meane tyme to vnderstande and beleeue otherwise then he him selfe preached by the Apostles Thus plainely generally absolutely ancient Tertullian of the infallibilitie of the Catholique Churche in points of doctrine and faith And nowe farther supposing that al these passages both of the scripture their expositors ar absolute general sans limitation it is most apparent they can admit no such distinction in their true sense interpretation but that at the leaste the catholique Churche can not teache or beleeue anie error at all in such things as ar contained within the total obiect of faith in which ther can not possible be anie parte or partial which is not fundamental by reason that all kinde of diuine faith is the verie foundation of Religion christian iustice according to the saying of S. Augustin Domus Dei fide fundatur the house of God is founded in faith if the foundation of the house of God were faultie it would doubtlesse fall to ruine contrarie to his owne promisse or affiirmation viz. That the gates of hell shal not preuaile against it Neither is it auaileable for our aduersaries to saye that the Church can not erre in the cheefe articles of her faith as ar the Trinitie the Incarnation of Christ which ar fundamentals but in such points as ar not fundamental as ar the reall presence iustification the true quantitie sense of Canonical scriptures other such like matters in controuersie with vs them the Church may teache erroneous false doctrine For thir euasion I replie it is grounded not in inuincible but in vincible grosse ignorance of the nature of true faith which being in it selfe one simple or single entitie or essence as according to the doctrine of the Apostle God Baptisme ar Vna fides vnum Baptisma vnus Deus how different soeuer its obiect be
appeared to him in his agonie Peter denyed Christ and other such like truthes Yet this how true soeuer it bee it is nothing to the purpose which here we treate nor afordeth anie grounde or foundation for the prenominated distinction of our aduersaries in regarde that althou ' ther be neuer soe great difference among those and other points of Religion in the dignitie of the material obiects by reason of which in some sorte the one may be named fundamental the other not fundamental neuerthelesse because the faith of the one is no lesse necessarie to saluatiō then the faith of the other thēce it is that absolutely the one is as much fundamental as the other and consequently ther ar no not fundamentals in matters of faith as the distinction of out aduersaries doth falsely suppose And hence in like manner it farther insueth that if the Church should erre but onely in the definitiō or proposition euen of those matters of lesse qualitie the error would be directly against diuine faith and consequently the Church in this case should truely be said to haue erred eued in fundamental points of faith and in matters necessarie to saluation fundamental points as I haue declared and often repeated being no other then all those reuailed truethes the faith of which is necessarie in the members of the Church for the obtaining of eternal life not obstanding anie difference which otherwise may apppeare in the nature of the seueral obiects or matters supposing no one parte but the whole intyre faith of Christ and euerie parte and partiall of those verities which he hath reuailed to his Church is the foundation of true Christian and Catholique Religion it being as necessarie to saluation for euerie true Christian to beleeue truely and syncerely if it be proposed vnto him by the Church that the cocke crowed at the tyme of S Peters denyal of Christ or that a souldier lanced our sauiors side with a speare as that he dyed vpon the Crosse for our redemption and risse againe for our iustification But Finally If peraduēture our aduersaries should say that within the compasse of true faith some things be necessarie to saluation and others not necessarie and that consequently some things be fundamental but others not To this instance I replye it is founded in a manifest equiuocation For althou ' it is true that their be some things within the compasse of saith which ar not necessarie for euerie member of the Church to knowe them expressely yet is it necessarie to saluation for euerie faithfull Christian thou ' neuer soe simple or ignorant to beleeue euerie parte and partiall of those obiects or matters which God hath reuailed if for such by the Church they be proposed vnto him otherwise he should incurre the censure of that strict and fearefull sentence of the most iuste and equal iudge Christ our Sauior qui vero non crediderit condemnabitur and soe the faith euen of all those things which euerie one by reason of his state or condition of life or for want of vnderstanding is not obledged to knowe is necessarie to saluation and consequently all kinde of faith of what matter soeuer it be that God hath reuailed is as much fūdamētall as is faith of the greatest matter or mysterie of the whole Christiā beleefe whēce it is that as S. Gregorie Nazianzen treating of the vnitie and integritie of faith in his 39. oratiō aboute the ende declareth by example or similitude that faith is like vnto a goulden chaine connected and compounded of diuers linkes from which if you take anie one away you loose your saluation as S. Ambrose in the ende of hir sixt kooke vpon the Euangell of S. Luke declares By which it is manifeste that faith of euerie point or matter within the compasse of faith is necessarie to saluation and therfore fundamental absolutely whether the obiect be great or little and no faith not fundamētal as the new distinction of the Nouellists most falsely affirmes which ther distinction doubtnesse was inuented by them to the ende they might haue a more plausible coulor to accuse the Roman Church of errors comitted in faith as alsoe for excuse of ther owne their malice and irreligion being so great that like vnconscionable taylers they chose rather to cutte out a Church for Christ of such corrupted stuffe as this then to liue or dye vnreuenged of the Catholique Roman Church And for conclusion I adde that since I haue made manifest by these my reasons that the faith euen of those points of Religion which our aduersaries terme not fundamental is absolutely required to the saluation of euerie Christian soule if euen in rhese particulars onely the Church could erre none could assuredly be persuaded that by makeing them selues members of it they ar in the certaine infallible way to the obteining of eternal blessednes but still should remaine in the like dangerous desperate state they did before they were in the Church of Christ cōsequently by reason of this vncertaintie perill a generall neglect of procuring to enter in to the true Church of Christ would be caused in the mindes of men which inconuenience in regarde it proceedes by inauoiable cōsequence from this distinction broached vsed by our aduersaries it plainely appeeres the doctrine of it is in diuers respect most pernicious damnable as not tending in anie sorte to the reformatiō of the Church as is by them pretended but directely to the ruine destruction of it Deuia sec 3. pag. 45. S. Augustin in the 23. chap. of the 13. booke of his cōfessions affirming that spiritual men must not iudge of the scripture is corrupted by Sir Hūfrey for he meaneth not that spiritual men must not in anie case iudge of the true sense of scripture for that were both false yea repugnant to the doctrine practise euen of the pretensiue reformers them selues who as they can not denye whether they be spiritual or not spirituall vse to read interpret scriptures much more comonly then the Romanists doe yea giue libertie therin euen to those of the feminine sexe or gender But the true obuious sense of that diuine doctor in the cited place onely is that spiritual men must not iudge anie thing contained in the scripture as presently he subioines non rite veraciterque dictum esse that is not to be ritely truelly spoken but submit their vnderstanding etiamsi quid ibi non lucet altou ' some thing be not cleare or perspicuous in it This is the pure syncere sense of S. Augustin as his verie wordes declare And nowe let the impartial reader decide whether it doth not rather militate or warre against the manner of dealing with scriptures which the Nouelists practise then againsts the Romanists how be it I syncerely confesse it directly makes neither against the one nor the other but precisely against such as iudge those passages of scripture to be false or not ritely deliuered